BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Middle Level Bill

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Wednesday 22 March (Standing Order No. 20).

Oral
Answers to
Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Judiciary

Jim Shannon: If he will make an assessment of the implications for his policies of recent statements by Gerry McGeough on the judiciary.

Kris Hopkins: I condemn the irresponsible and disgraceful comments made by Gerry McGeough. I strongly support the work of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. Any attack on it is unacceptable.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his response, but I call on him to contact the Public Prosecution Service to find out why a man who was convicted of the attempted murder of my colleague Councillor Sammy Brush and released on licence following his conviction, and who is known to have a lengthy history of violence, is not being pursued by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the PPS for his recent threat against Catholic members of the judiciary, whom he named as traitors. What will the Minister do to ensure that action is taken?

Kris Hopkins: I reiterate our condemnation of the comments made by Gerry McGeough. Our responsibility, if we are given the relevant information, is to consider whether we can suspend the licence. It is up to the independent commissioners to discuss that. It would be wrong for us to seek to fix the system further down. I trust our police service and the PPS to make the right decision.

Sylvia Hermon: The Minister will know that Mr McGeough did not receive a comfort letter, apparently because of an internal feud within Sinn Féin. The scheme for issuing comfort letters to  those on the run—a scheme operated by Labour and Conservative Governments—was utterly deplorable, completely immoral and wrong. Will the Minister confirm for the record that no such scheme, or anything akin to an amnesty, is on the table for negotiation with Sinn Féin in dealing with legacy issues? That would be very helpful.

Kris Hopkins: Yes.

Power-sharing Agreement

Maria Caulfield: What progress has been made on a power-sharing agreement following the recent elections in Northern Ireland.

James Brokenshire: The Government are committed to the resumption of devolved government in Northern Ireland, and I believe that the parties and the Irish Government share this commitment. Later today, I will return to Belfast to continue intensive discussions to establish a partnership Executive within the short timeframe available. Progress has been made but it needs to continue, with urgency, if we are to achieve a positive outcome.

Maria Caulfield: As a nurse, I am acutely aware of the need for the Northern Ireland Executive to set a budget to ensure that public services, particularly health services, are adequately funded. Without an Executive in place, that is almost impossible. Does the Secretary of State share my fear that the failure to restore the Executive is putting Northern Ireland at severe financial risk?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend highlights some of the issues surrounding setting a budget for Northern Ireland, which is a key priority. She highlights the health service, and I pay tribute to all those who work in the health service in Northern Ireland. They do an incredible job. There is a sense of the real potential and opportunity that a new Executive can take forward, and we must equally reflect on the £120 million identified in last week’s Budget that an Executive could invest, through to 2021, to really take Northern Ireland forward.

Nigel Dodds: May I, on behalf of my colleagues, express my condolences and sympathy to the families of the crew of the Irish Coast Guard helicopter that has crashed? I am certain that everyone in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic will be deeply sympathetic to the families at this time. I also extend my sympathy to the family of George Gilmore, who was murdered in Carrickfergus in recent days. It appears that this appalling and terrible crime was carried out by loyalist paramilitaries. Will the Secretary of State reiterate the determination of all of us to move forward on the Stormont House agreement in relation to the provisions to tackle paramilitarism, both republican and loyalist?

James Brokenshire: I join the right hon. Gentleman in his comments and thoughts about the crew of the Irish helicopter. That is a terrible tragedy and I know that the whole House will share that view. I also join him in condemning the appalling murder that has taken place. I spoke to the PSNI about the case this morning, and I  know that it is actively pursuing lines of inquiry. He also highlights the issue of paramilitarism, and I stand absolutely four-square behind our continuing work to confront that scourge. There is no justification for it at all. We are also providing funding to the tune of £25 million in support of that important work.

Nigel Dodds: Further to that, the Secretary of State will be aware that the DUP is absolutely and totally committed in the current talks to getting devolution back up and running in Northern Ireland. We did not tear down the institutions or create the present crisis; others walked away. We are determined to restore the Executive as quickly as possible. What the Prime Minister said yesterday about ruling out a border poll was good, but will the Secretary of State confirm that the Irish Republic’s involvement in the strand 1, 2 and 3 talks is limited to strands 2 and 3 on the relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and that the Republic also has a role to play in answering questions about legacy issues?

James Brokenshire: I can certainly confirm that that is the approach that is being taken, which is consistent with the Belfast agreement. The contribution that the Irish Government are making in that context is positive, and we all feel a responsibility to see devolved Government back in place, delivering for Northern Ireland. I know that all the parties recognise that and are working hard to achieve it.

Edward Leigh: Having been a Member of Parliament for many years prior to devolution, I am acutely aware of the total inadequacy of direct rule. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is undertaking the negotiations with the utmost urgency and intensity to get a deal on devolved government?

James Brokenshire: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that devolved government is the only thing that I am working towards. That is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for and that is what they want to see delivering change for Northern Ireland and having a positive impact on people’s lives. We are approaching that with urgency.

Deidre Brock: I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State rules out the direct rule option, but what contingency planning is he doing? Is he prepared to extend the negotiation period if no agreement is reached?

James Brokenshire: The UK Government take their responsibilities seriously in providing political stability, but the focus—the real intent—is on securing an outcome and an agreement in that three-week period. I believe that that is doable and achievable, and it is with that approach, and with good will, that I hope the parties will engage to achieve that outcome. Speculating on alternative approaches is not helpful.

Owen Paterson: I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on those who recently lost their lives.
Hard-working people in Northern Ireland will be staunchly behind the Secretary of State in his efforts to re-establish a new Administration following the elections. However, in order to concentrate minds, if local politicians are unwise enough not to form an Administration, will he consider taking measures to cease paying salaries and expenses to those who have been elected?

James Brokenshire: My right hon. Friend highlights a report that was published on that issue over the past week or so. My focus and intent is on getting the parties together to reach an agreement within the three weeks. As I said, I think that that is doable with urgency and a sense of good will. That is what we need to focus on.

Steve Pound: Today is a rather sombre day in that it marks the Ides of March, but this Friday we will have the opportunity to hail glorious St Patrick. If you will allow me, Mr Speaker, I will wish you and the House the happiest of St Patrick’s days in advance.
Like many Members, I cannot remember a more serious time since the Good Friday agreement was signed, and I say on the behalf of my Opposition colleagues that normal hostilities are suspended. We will be offering unequivocal support to the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Government. The time for internecine dispute in this place is over; the time for constructive engagement and working together is here and now. In that tone, and in reference to the talks the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, has there been a roundtable plenary involving any or all of the parties?

James Brokenshire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I think we share a cross-party approach on the serious issue of ensuring that we get an Executive back in place, delivering for Northern Ireland and following through on commitments and, indeed, the expectations of the public. I hope he will understand that I will not provide a running narrative on the talks, but I can say that I believe progress is being made. Some significant issues still need to be resolved, but we are none the less approaching this with good will.

Steve Pound: I entirely accept that there is good will, but I am slightly concerned about the statement by the leader of one of the Northern Irish parties that some meetings have been cancelled. I wish to give the Secretary of State a fair following wind, as do we all. Has he received any representation from the charitable sector within Northern Ireland about problems it is facing due to the budgetary impasse?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it goes back to the fact that a budget has not been set, which has created uncertainty. We need to see the Executive in place within the three-week timescale, because there could be implications for a range of different issues within Northern Ireland. That is why the community and voluntary sector, the faith community and the business community have been firmly underlining the clear need to get devolved government working, stable and back, and that is where our focus needs to be.

Good Friday Agreement: Institutions

Mike Gapes: What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Republic of Ireland on the future of institutions established under the Good Friday agreement.

James Brokenshire: The Government stand firmly behind the institutions of the Belfast agreement and its successors. I have regular discussions with the Irish Government on a range of issues. Our immediate focus, consistent with the Belfast agreement, is working with the parties to resume the devolved Administration.

Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State will know that, at the time of the Good Friday agreement nearly 19 years ago, the European Union played a role alongside the Irish and British Governments. Does he envisage any role for international support to maintain the institutional frameworks, particularly the all-Ireland institutional co-operation that has been so important over recent years?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman is right  to highlight the strong relationship between the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. We stand four-square behind our commitments under the Belfast agreement and its successors, and at EU level I have picked up strong support for the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. We are determined to get the best possible deal for Northern Ireland, recognising our commitments and recognising the Belfast agreement.

Sheryll Murray: On the Good Friday agreement, will the Secretary of State ensure that the disgraceful treatment of my constituent Corporal Major Dennis Hutchings and others will be addressed as part of any further discussions on legacy issues?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend has raised the issue of her constituent on a number of occasions, and I pay tribute to her for her work as a constituency MP. She will understand that I am unable to comment on individual cases, but I can say that the current system for dealing with a range of issues related to legacy is not working for anyone. It is not working for service personnel and it is not working for victims, which is why it is important that we move forward with the Stormont House bodies to create the balanced, proportionate and fair system that everyone recognises is needed.

Mark Durkan: Does the Secretary of State not understand that Brexit could have implications for the standing and currency of some of the implementation bodies that were created under strand 2 of the agreement? Also, does he appreciate that strand 2 offers an ambit of north-south co-operation and common implementation that could help to answer some of the problems that Brexit creates?

James Brokenshire: Before Christmas there was a good discussion at the North South Ministerial Council on the EU and other related issues. It is important to recognise the institutional framework that we have under  the Belfast agreement. That is something we support, and I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the White Paper, which highlighted that support and our recognition of it.

Gavin Robinson: The Secretary of State will have heard the belligerent utterance of the former Sinn Féin director of Unionist engagement, who said that the Prime Minister can stick a hard or soft border
“where the sun doesn’t shine”.
I invite the Secretary of State to remind Martina Anderson and all those in Sinn Féin that it is the Good Friday agreement that sets the terms for the future of Northern Ireland, that it is based on the majority will of the people and that it has not changed.

James Brokenshire: We stand behind the Belfast agreement and the principle of consent that is contained within it. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Prime Minister said on that issue yesterday. Of course we recognise that there are significant issues, which is why we have said that we do not want to see a return to the borders of the past and that we recognise the desire for an expansive free trade agreement with the EU. It is important that we continue that dialogue and discourse and that we focus on these serious issues in that way.

Steve Pound: My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) is right to refer to the role of the Irish Government, and I praise the Secretary of State for the good working relationship he has established with Minister Flanagan. I thank him for the statements made by his Minister yesterday at yet another of the many St Patrick’s day celebrations, when he paid tribute not only to the role of our co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement, the Dublin Government, but to Ambassador Dan Mulhall, who will be leaving us in London for Washington. Does the Secretary of State agree that Ambassador Mulhall has been a perfect example of how we can work together in the interests  of all?

James Brokenshire: I have very much enjoyed and appreciated working with Ambassador Mulhall, whom we wish well in his new and perhaps challenging and exciting role. It is important to underline the strong relationship we have with the Irish Government on a range of issues. We want to see that continuing into the future, and that engagement will be continued with that spirit in mind.

Political Developments

Edward Argar: What assessment he has made of recent political developments in Northern Ireland.

Wendy Morton: What assessment he has made of recent political developments in Northern Ireland.

Amanda Milling: What assessment he has made of recent political developments in Northern Ireland.

Rebecca Harris: What assessment he has made of recent political developments in Northern Ireland.

James Brokenshire: Nearly 65% of the Northern Ireland electorate voted for continued devolved government. I have seen that endorsed over the past 10 days in a shared willingness among the parties to engage in intensive discussions, acknowledging what is at stake if an Executive are not formed. These are still significant challenges, but I believe that with continued positive intent we can secure a resolution that sees devolved government resumed.

Edward Argar: I welcome that answer from my right hon. Friend, just as I welcome the economic success story that is the Northern Irish economy over the past few years. Does he agree that a key part of that success has been effective, stable power-sharing government, which is another reason for all parties to resolve this situation as swiftly as possible?

James Brokenshire: I do recognise that, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight some of the important successes in the Northern Ireland economy. The labour market survey statistics that are out today show 56,000 more jobs since 2010 in Northern Ireland, which highlights what has been achieved and what can be achieved in future with a strong Executive in place.

Wendy Morton: I wish my right hon. Friend well in the discussions taking place in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that, whatever issues need to be overcome, devolved government within the UK remains by far and away the best option for Northern Ireland?

James Brokenshire: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The public voted overwhelmingly and clearly, with that increased turnout, for devolved government be put back in place, delivering for Northern Ireland, and I am determined to see that, too.

Amanda Milling: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of the Assembly election demonstrates the desire of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland for strong and stable devolved government?

James Brokenshire: Yes, I do. That stability is able to bring about further positive change in Northern Ireland, with further foreign direct investment and more jobs being created. That is what I strongly support, and I know that vision is also shared by the parties.

Rebecca Harris: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in all their discussions the Government will maintain their full support for the Belfast agreement and its successors, including, crucially, the principle that Northern Ireland’s position within the Union will always be determined by the principle of consent?

James Brokenshire: I am happy to confirm that. We stand four-square behind our commitments under the Belfast agreement, with the principle of consent being a firm part of that. I am also clear about the support that we see for the continuing institutions and structures, and giving effect to that.

Margaret Ritchie: May I offer my condolences to those who lost their lives this week, particularly those in the Irish Coast Guard, who do so much good work in the north, particularly in my constituency?

James Brokenshire: I echo the hon. Lady’s comments about those who lost their lives. We recognise Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances—its economy, geography and history—and will ensure that they are properly taken into account as we prepare for EU exit. We want to ensure that those issues are properly reflected in the negotiations ahead so that we get the best possible deal for Northern Ireland.

Tom Elliott: What does the Secretary of State see as the greatest stumbling blocks in the current talks? How confident is he that a deal will be established by 27 March?

James Brokenshire: As I have indicated, I think a deal can be achieved with good will and a real sense of urgency in the discussions ahead. Issues still need to  be overcome, and as I have already said, it would not be constructive to provide a running narrative. I urge people to continue to engage and to be involved in those intensive talks, because that is how we will get a positive result.

Sammy Wilson: I express my condolences to the family of my constituent Mr Gilmore, who was murdered by paramilitaries this week. Given the attitude Sinn Féin have adopted regarding whom they will accept as First Minister, the role of the Secretary of State in talks and their desire to have soldiers and policemen prosecuted in the courts, does the Secretary of State believe there is much chance of success in the talks? If not, will he move quickly to fill the budget gap left by the Sinn Féin Finance Minister?

James Brokenshire: This remains doable—that is the important message we need to underline. Yes, of course, time is short, and yes, there is a range of issues that still need to be discussed and agreed on, but there is need for positive intent on all sides, which will be the best way to get the right outcome.

John Bercow: Order. These are extremely serious matters affecting Northern Ireland, the people of which might think it a tad discourteous if we do not have an attentive hearing for colleagues. Let us have an attentive hearing for Theresa Villiers.

Theresa Villiers: The Government and the police have disclosed unprecedented amounts of information about the troubles, some of it extremely sensitive. Does the Secretary of State agree that some information is so sensitive that it can never go into the public domain because if it did, it would put lives at risk?

James Brokenshire: I agree with my right hon. Friend. With all her experience as the previous Secretary of State, she knows the sensitivity and importance of issues of national security, which remains the primary responsibility of the UK Government. In our actions, we will certainly continue to have that at the forefront of our mind.

D’Hondt System

Hugo Swire: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the d’Hondt system in Northern Ireland.

Kris Hopkins: rose—

Hear, hear!

John Bercow: The Minister should bask in his own popularity.

Kris Hopkins: I take it that reaction was not for me.
The use of the d’Hondt system is a stipulation of the Belfast agreement, as it ensures cross-community representation in the Executive. The Government are committed to upholding Northern Ireland’s constitutional settlement, as outlined in the Belfast agreement and its successors.

Hugo Swire: The priority must of course be to persuade all the parties back into government in Northern Ireland to avoid the prospect of direct rule. Given the recent instability, in the longer term is it worth having a discussion about a new form of government involving  a Government and an Opposition?

Kris Hopkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, but we are not considering a review at this moment in time. What is important now is to help the parties to come back together and form an Executive, and that is the Government’s focus.

Gregory Campbell: Does the Minister agree that, as the talks develop over the next few weeks, a likely consensus is going to emerge around the Stormont House agreement and all the contents therein? We should base progress, and hopefully agreement, on that, rather than on wish lists with no chance of success.

Kris Hopkins: It would be appropriate to build around the common consensus that is currently out there. There have already been agreements on Stormont House, so obviously that should be the centre point of the current talks.

Tourism

Tom Pursglove: What steps his Department is taking to promote tourism in Northern Ireland.

Kris Hopkins: The Government will continue to use every possible opportunity to promote Northern Ireland as a world-class tourist destination.

Tom Pursglove: Tourism in Northern Ireland apparently generates a revenue of £764 million and attracts 4.5 million visitors a year. In the light of Brexit, what steps will be taken in partnership to ensure that even further tourist growth is delivered?

Kris Hopkins: We have a commitment to an industrial strategy, engagement with all sectors in Northern Ireland, and additional funding of some £600 million a year for the GREAT Britain campaign.

Alasdair McDonnell: Does the Secretary of State accept that tourism has the potential to make an even more significant contribution to the Northern Ireland economy, particularly in deprived rural areas? Will he take steps to ensure that adequate resources are invested in the Northern Ireland tourist board and in Tourism Ireland to ensure that we have a product and that we market it?

Kris Hopkins: Just last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor committed additional money to funding in Northern Ireland. There is a responsibility to get the Executive back to offer leadership in this matter. I urge every Member in this House to visit Northern Ireland—take a weekend break—as it is an amazing place to visit.

John Bercow: Finally, constraints of time are against us, but Sir Jeffrey Donaldson must be heard.

Operation Banner

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the provision of legal protection to veterans of the armed forces who served in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner.

Kris Hopkins: This Government are unstinting in our admiration for the role that our armed forces have played in Northern Ireland in securing democracy and consent. The current process for addressing the past is not working, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, and we will ensure that the new legacy bodies will be under legal obligations to be fair, balanced and proportionate. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Let us hear from Sir Jeffrey Donaldson.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Given the scrapping of the Iraq inquiries and the judgment today in the case of Alexander Blackman, is it not time that the Government provided legal protection to the men and women who serve this country on the frontline?

Kris Hopkins: This Government never move away from their obligation to care for their veterans. We have put in huge resources to do that. I know that the right   hon. Gentleman is very passionate about looking after our armed forces personnel. I am more than happy to meet him to discuss this matter further.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Huw Merriman: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 15 March.

Theresa May: I am sure that Members will want to join me in wishing people across the UK and around the world a happy St Patrick’s day this coming Friday. This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Huw Merriman: With my Irish blood, may I also wish people a happy St Patrick’s day?
I welcome the Government’s announcement that we will abide by the letter of our manifesto and also the spirit. Does the Prime Minister agree that, as we move towards balancing the books, we must ensure that we have a fair and sustainable tax system?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We made a commitment not to raise tax, and we put our commitment into the tax lock. The measures that we put forward in the Budget last week were consistent with those locks. As a number of my parliamentary colleagues have been pointing out in recent days—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. This is intolerable. [Interruption.] I take no view on the matter, but I do take a view on the importance of hearing the questions and the answers.

Theresa May: As a number of my parliamentary colleagues have been pointing out in recent days, the trend towards greater self-employment does create a structural issue in the tax base on which we will have to act. We want to ensure that we maintain, as they have said, fairness in the tax system. We will await the report from Matthew Taylor on the future of employment; consider the Government’s overall approach to employment status and rights to tax and entitlements; and bring forward further proposals, but we will not bring forward increases to national insurance contributions later in this Parliament.

Jeremy Corbyn: First, may  I wish everyone in my constituency, in Ireland and  all around the world a very happy St Patrick’s day on the 17th?
We have just heard that the Prime Minister is about to drop the national insurance hike announced only a week ago. It seems to me that the Government are in a bit of chaos here with a Budget that unravels in seven days, a Conservative manifesto with a pensive Prime Minister on the front page saying that there would be no increase, and a week ago an increase being announced. If they are to drop the increase, as they are indicating, the Prime Minister should thank the Federation of  Small Businesses and all those who have pointed out both how unfair the increase would be and how big business evades an awful lot of national insurance through bogus self-employment.

Theresa May: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). I normally stand at this Dispatch Box and say I will not take any lectures from the right hon. Gentleman, but when it comes to lectures on chaos he would be the first person I turned to.

Jeremy Corbyn: I think the Prime Minister should offer an apology for the chaos that her Government have caused during the past week and the stress they have caused to the 4.8 million self-employed people in this country. Will she offer that apology? Her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales did so a week ago; it is time she joined him. This measure, if carried through, will create a black hole in the budget. What is she going to do to fill that black hole?

Theresa May: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about balancing the books, why is it Labour party policy to borrow half a trillion pounds and bankrupt Britain?

Jeremy Corbyn: Given that this Government propose to borrow more between now and 2020 than the entire borrowing of all Labour Governments put together, we do not need lectures from them on that. I hope that in his statement later today the Chancellor will address the question of injustice to many people who are forced into bogus self-employment by unscrupulous companies, many of which force their workers to become self-employed and thereby avoid employer’s national insurance contributions. It is a grossly unfair system where those in self-employment pay some national insurance, but employers do not, and benefit from it. That is a gross injustice that must be addressed.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman obviously has not noticed that one of the first things I did when I became Prime Minister was commission Matthew Taylor of the RSA to conduct a review of the employment market and employment rights and status, precisely because we recognised that the employment market is changing. He talks about the self-employed, so let us look at what we have done for the self-employed. Our increase in the personal allowance means that they now keep more of their earnings. They will have access to both tax-free childcare and 30 hours of free childcare a week, just like employees, and now they have access to the new state pension, worth over £1,800 more a year. What we know is that the Labour party’s policies would bankrupt Britain and put firms out of business and people out of jobs.

Jeremy Corbyn: We have a Government U-turn, no apology, and a Budget that falls most heavily on those with the least broad shoulders, with cuts to schools, cuts to social care and cuts to support for people with disabilities. That is the agenda of the right hon. Lady’s Government, and everybody knows it.

Theresa May: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has got the hang of this. He is supposed to ask me a question when he stands up—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Let us hear the answer.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman talks about schools. What have we done? We have protected the core schools budget and introduced the pupil premium. This Budget delivers money for more than 100 new schools, ensuring good school places for every child. This Budget delivers on skills for young people; we want them to be equipped for the jobs of the future. The Budget delivers £500 million for technical education. We also recognise the pressure on social care. This Budget delivers £2 billion more funding for social care—funding that would not be available with Labour’s economic policies.

Jeremy Corbyn: It would be a very good idea if the Prime Minister listened to headteachers all over the country, who are desperately trying to work out how to balance the books in their schools, but are losing teachers, losing teaching assistants and losing support for their children because school budgets are being cut. She knows that. We all know that. Everybody out there knows that. They also know that, according to figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, average working families will be £1,400 worse off as a result of her Budget that was produced last week. What is she doing to help the worst off and poorest in our society, rather than continuing to cut local government and schools expenditure, and to underfund social care?

Theresa May: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what we have delivered for the low paid. We have frozen VAT and fuel duty, and every basic rate taxpayer has had a tax cut worth £1,000. We have taken more than 3 million people out of paying income tax altogether. That is what we have done for the low paid. On schools, 1.8 million more children are now in good or outstanding schools. I want a good school place for every child. We have done it with free schools and academies, and with our changes to education—all opposed by the Labour party. Now it wants to oppose our giving every child a good school place. What do we know about the Labour party’s policies? Well, the former shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said that Labour’s policies would mean doubling national insurance, doubling VAT and doubling council tax. That would not help the low paid or ordinary working families.

Jeremy Corbyn: The difference is that we want a good school and a good place for every child in every school in every community. Selective education—the reintroduction of grammar schools—does not achieve that. We want a staircase for all, not a ladder for the few, which is what Conservative policies actually are. The Prime Minister has also not addressed the unfairness of a Budget that cuts tax at the top end, continues to reduce corporation tax and encourages bogus self-employment. She has to address the issues of injustice and inequality in our society, and of a Government who are dedicated to widening the gap, not helping the hard-up or those who are working as self-employed, trying to make ends meet and not getting access to any benefits at the same time.

Theresa May: Inequality has gone down under this Government. The Budget shows that the top 1% of earners will actually contribute 27% in terms of the income that they are providing. Let me address the issue of schools. The problem with what the right hon. Gentleman says is that the Labour party has opposed, and continues to oppose, every single education policy brought forward by this Government, delivering more good school places for children. The Labour party’s approach is that parents shall take what they are given, good or bad. We believe in listening to parents.
Let us look ahead to what the right hon. Gentleman’s policies would produce for this country: half a trillion pounds of borrowing—£500 billion more borrowing under the Labour party—more taxes, more spending and more borrowing. It would be a bankrupt Britain that would not give money for public services or help ordinary working families. It is the Conservative party that is helping ordinary working families. It is the Labour party that is failing to address the needs of the people of this country. We are delivering. He is just sitting there or going on protest marches.

Jeremy Quin: As the facts change, I change my question. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on proposing the most radical reform of technical education in a generation and delivering fair funding for all our schools? However, may I ask her, as part of the consultation, to ensure a minimum level of appropriate funding for all schools?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend, because he has raised an important point. One of the issues we have addressed in the Budget is putting more money into skills training—into further education and technical education—for young people. I think that one of the most important things we can do is equip young people for their futures, and for the jobs of the future, so that they can get on in life. We are investing an extra half a billion pounds a year, as I said earlier, in England’s technical education system to do this.
My hon. Friend referred to the issue of a minimum funding level. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary confirmed last month that the Department for Education has heard representations on this issue. It is considering these issues, but the funding formula is a complex issue that has needed addressing for some time, and we will be looking at it carefully.

Angus Robertson: We once had a Prime Minister who said,
“The lady’s not for turning.”
My goodness, is it not welcome that the Prime Minister has today admitted that she is for turning, with her screeching, embarrassing U-turn on national insurance contributions?
Only days remain until the Prime Minister is going to invoke article 50 on leaving the European Union. Last July, she promised to secure a UK-wide approach—an agreement between the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the UK Government—before triggering article 50, so when will the Prime Minister announce the details of the agreement?

Theresa May: As I said to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, and to others asking me questions on the timetable yesterday, we will trigger article 50 by   the end of March. There will be an opportunity for further discussions with the devolved Administrations over that period. On the issue of membership of the European Union, and his view on Scotland not being a member of the United Kingdom, I say this to him: he is comparing membership of an organisation that we have been a member of for 40 years with our country. We have been one country for over 300 years; we have fought together, we have worked together, we have achieved together, and constitutional game-playing must not be allowed to break the deep bonds of our shared history and our future together.

Angus Robertson: The Prime Minister can wag her finger as much as she likes; last year, she made a promise: she promised an agreement. I asked her about it yesterday; she did not answer. I have asked her about it now; she has not answered. When will she reach  an agreement—not discussions—with the Scottish Government before triggering article 50? She has another opportunity. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I recognise the passions—[Interruption.] Mr Wishart, calm yourself, man. I am perfectly capable of doing this without your beneficent assistance. The right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) will be heard, however long it takes. [Interruption.] Yes, he will; he will continue, however long it takes. Carry on, Mr Robertson.

Angus Robertson: The Prime Minister promised an agreement; there is not an agreement. When will there be an agreement? Does she not understand that if she does not secure an agreement before triggering article 50 —if she is not prepared to negotiate on behalf of  the Scottish Government and secure membership of the single European market—people in Scotland will have a referendum, and we will have our say?

Theresa May: We have been in discussions with the Scottish Government and with the other devolved Administrations about the interests that they have as we prepare, as the United Kingdom Government, to negotiate a deal on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom—a deal that will be a good deal for not just England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the people of Scotland as well. As we go forward in negotiating that deal, I think the right hon. Gentleman should remember this: Scotland will be leaving the European Union, either as a member of the United Kingdom or if it were independent, as it is very clear from the Barroso document that it would not be a member of the European Union. What we need now is to unite, come together as a country, and ensure that we can get the best deal for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Andrew Turner: This Government are working with local enterprise partnerships, councils and other partners to grow the economy, but despite being in the prosperous south-east, the Isle of Wight is 339th out of 379 in the UK competitiveness index. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that more growth funding is targeted at rural areas such as the island, with its many small and microbusinesses, to deliver a country that works for all?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend speaks well on behalf of his constituents, and he is right to do that. I know that he has consistently put forward the unique  characteristics of the Isle of Wight. We have already been able to support the island’s economy through the local growth deal for the Solent—that is £183 million—and the Solent local enterprise partnership has been supporting the Isle of Wight rural small and medium-sized enterprise programme; my hon. Friend particularly referred to rural funding. I want to make sure that we make the best of the diverse strengths of all Britain’s cities, regions and islands. I am sure that on the island, the business community and the council will work together to create the best possible conditions for growth and competitiveness in the future.

Stephen Doughty: Our two single markets are the backbone of our economy, yet the Prime Minister wants to rip us away from one, and the Scottish National party wants to break up the other. Is the risky and reckless approach she is taking to Brexit really a price worth paying to foster the break-up of Britain?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that I want to rip the United Kingdom away from the single market. What we want to do—[Interruption.] I am sorry to say to hon. Members on the Labour Benches that this is the same answer that I have given consistently in this House. We want to ensure that we get a good free trade agreement that gives us the maximum possible access to the single market, to enable us to trade with the single market and operate within the single market.

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the support on business rates being given by the Budget to local high streets, which are so crucially valued in places such as my constituency of Barnet. Does the Prime Minister agree that we can give more help to small businesses if we secure the international agreement we need to ensure that all big businesses pay their taxes?

Theresa May: This is a very important issue, and one on which I think this Government have a record of which we can be proud, but of course there is more to do. Since 2010, through the work we have done on tackling tax evasion, avoidance and non-compliance, we have secured an additional £140 billion in compliance yield. Internationally, we have driven the global agenda. We have now got 100 countries signed up to the automatic exchange of financial account information, and we have pushed G7 and G20 partners to establish registers of beneficial ownership, but my right hon. Friend is right: there is more to do. We will continue to crack down on big companies not paying their tax. I want to see an economy that works for everyone, and that means that big companies should be paying their tax as well as everybody else.

Michael Weir: In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the Prime Minister called for respect, but that is a two-way street. Where is her Government’s respect for the Scottish Government’s compromise proposal, which has just been ignored in these negotiations?

Theresa May: The compromise proposal has not been ignored; it has been discussed by Ministers with Ministers from the Scottish Government. There  are many areas within that proposal on which we agree, as I have said before, such as on ensuring our security from crime and terrorism, and maintaining and protecting workers’ rights.

Will Quince: Colchester hospital’s A&E department has excellent staff, but suffers from poor layout and patient flow. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the £100 million set out for triage in the Budget last week will enable hospitals such as mine to address this issue and improve patient outcomes?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to recognise, and we should all recognise, the hard work and dedication of our excellent staff throughout the NHS. What we are seeing in the NHS is that A&Es are treating more people than ever before. We are spending half a trillion pounds on the NHS in England during this Parliament, and the NHS is going to see an increase in its funding of £10 billion in real terms, but there is sometimes an issue, as my hon. Friend says, about the configuration of A&E and enabling changes to take place to help the flow, and to help in dealing with potential patients as they come in. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced last week £425 million in new capital investment in the NHS, which includes £100 million to help manage the demand on A&E services, enabling hospitals to make changes to ensure people are treated in the most appropriate way possible.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Over 200 staff at the Cwmbran pension centre in my constituency face an uncertain future, as they have been told they have to relocate to other areas over the next few years. Does the Prime Minister realise the impact this has on staff and the local economy, and will she meet me and representatives of the workforce to see what can be done to save Cwmbran pension centre?

Theresa May: I recognise the concern that the hon. Gentleman has raised for staff at that particular pension office in—

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Cwmbran.

Theresa May: Cwmbran. I recognise this is an issue. I am sure it is an issue that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will look at very closely, but of course the Government are looking to ensure that we both use our resources effectively, but also provide the proper and appropriate service for the recipients of those particular benefits.

Victoria Atkins: Last weekend, thousands of people from across Lincolnshire came to the Revesby races in my constituency to enjoy the racing and the delicious local food, including award-winning Lincolnshire sausages. As the Government prepare to strike new international trade deals, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the high standards we expect of our food producers and farmers will be met and maintained in these deals, and will this Government continue to back British farming?

Theresa May: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will certainly do that. I remember, when I visited her prior to the general election in 2015, sampling some of the excellent Lincolnshire sausages that come from her  constituency. We have an opportunity to build a new future for our food and farming industry when we leave the European Union. We will maintain the UK’s high standards of food safety and of animal welfare; that will be a priority for us. Any trade deals we enter into will need to be right for consumers, for businesses and for farmers, and will need to ensure our food safety and environmental protection, and of course the animal welfare standards I have just referred to. We recognise the need for certainty for businesses. We have already provided guarantees on support for farmers up to 2020, and I can assure her that we will continue to back British farmers.

Callum McCaig: The UK has one of the worst performing currencies in the world, and it has a trade deficit of £133 billion and a national debt approaching £1.7 trillion. May I ask the Prime Minister: does she really believe that the UK could afford to be an independent country?

Theresa May: If he wants—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber. Hon. Members on the SNP Benches are very over-excited individuals. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s reply. Let us hear the reply.

Theresa May: If the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) wants to talk about figures in relation to the UK economy, it is the world’s sixth largest economy, and this Government have reduced the deficit by two thirds. If he would care to look at the employment figures we see today, employment is at a record high and unemployment has not been lower since 1975.

Tim Loughton: Today is the Ides of March—and, yet again, Brutus opposite missed badly—so will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to stick the knife into the ridiculous Court of Justice of the European Union, which ruled yesterday that employers can ban their staff from wearing signs of religious or political belief, and reiterate that reasonable freedom of expression should never be snuffed out by insidious political correctness?

Theresa May: We have, as my hon. Friend knows, a strong tradition in this country of freedom of expression. It is the right of all women to choose how they dress and we do not intend to legislate on this issue. He raised the broader issue of symbols, but this case came up particularly in relation to the wearing of the veil. There will be times when it is right to ask for a veil to be removed, such as at border security or, perhaps, in court. Individual institutions can make their own policies, but it is not for Government to tell women what they can and cannot wear. We want to continue that strong tradition of freedom of expression.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Our First Minister was elected with the largest vote in Scottish parliamentary history, on a manifesto that stated that the Scottish Parliament—

John Bercow: Order. The question will be heard.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will start again. Our First Minister was elected with the largest vote in Scottish parliamentary history, on a manifesto pledge that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold an independence referendum
“if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances…such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.”
My question to the Prime Minister is simple: does she agree that Governments should stick to their manifesto promises? If so, she cannot object to the First Minister sticking to hers.

Theresa May: I of course recognise that a vote took place for the Scottish Parliament, and that the First Minister was returned as the First Minister of a minority Government, but I refer the hon. Lady to two other votes that took place. In September 2014, the Scottish people were given the opportunity to vote on whether or not they wished to remain in the United Kingdom. They chose that Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. That was described by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) as a “once in a generation” vote. The other vote to take note of was on 23 June last year, when the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, and that is what we are going to do.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: With 80% of small and medium-sized enterprises reluctant to export, does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospect of Brexit gives those firms—particularly those from Scotland—a golden opportunity to use the great British entrepreneurial spirit to go out into the world and succeed?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Small businesses and entrepreneurs are essential to an economy that is working for everyone. The opportunity that comes from Brexit is to see those firms go out and export across the world, and to do those trade deals that will be of benefit to them, to their communities and to our economy. We want to encourage more businesses to go out there and export. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is doing. This is an important part of building a stronger, fairer Britain for the future.

Hannah Bardell: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs employs more than 1,000 vital staff in my Livingston constituency. Despite widespread criticism from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, and despite Livingston having the most engaged and productive staff, the Prime Minister’s Government are determined to move jobs from Livingston to Edinburgh. Staff do not want to move there and rental costs will be higher. To compound that, last week Ethicon announced that 400 jobs are set to go at its Livingston site. Will the Prime Minister therefore change her mind on HMRC jobs in Livingston, and meet me to ensure that public sector jobs that are vital to Livingston stay in Livingston?

Theresa May: HMRC is indeed relocating from 170 outdated offices to 13 large, modern regional centres. The new centres will be equipped with the digital infrastructure and facilities that are needed to build a  more highly skilled and flexible workforce, to enable the modernisation of ways of working, make tax collection more efficient and effective, and bring significant improvements to HMRC’s customer services.

Dr Caroline Johnson: The people of Sleaford and North Hykeham voted strongly in favour of Brexit, and I was very proud to be here in the House on Monday to vote in support of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirm that she shares my commitment to a Brexit that works in the best interests of everyone in our country?

Theresa May: I have to say—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was shouting from beyond the Bar, which is very disorderly. On top of that, a few moments ago he was gesticulating in a most eccentric manner. I am becoming concerned about the hon. Gentleman, who must now calm himself.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) is absolutely right. As she says, her constituency voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union. The point is that the people of the United Kingdom voted by a majority to leave the European Union. As we do that, we will ensure that the deal we achieve in our negotiations is the right deal for the whole of the United Kingdom—for people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Yvette Cooper: The Prime Minister has just made a £2 billion Budget U-turn in the space of a week. Last year, the Government made a £4 billion U-turn in the space of five days. Is that why they want to abolish spring Budgets—because they just keep ripping them up?

Theresa May: I welcome the measures in the spring Budget to improve school places for children, and to ensure that we put money—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is another very eccentric fellow shouting very loudly. You must not shout down your own Prime Minister! Let us hear the Prime Minister.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the measures in the spring Budget to ensure we put money into schools, skills and social care. I would have thought the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) would have accepted that putting money into schools, skills and social care is good for this country.

Rebecca Pow: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the news today that Sergeant Blackman’s murder conviction has been downgraded to manslaughter, in part thanks to the release of previously unheard evidence? That is fantastic news for his wife Claire, who lives in my constituency and who has campaigned so unstintingly. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), who I believe is returning from chambers, proved a very  worthy advocate in this case, and I commend his hard work. Does the Prime Minister agree that, within the correct legal framework, those who defend our peace and protect our world from evil should be treated with fairness and understanding and given the adequate resources, including mental health support, that they deserve?

Theresa May: Of course we respect the court’s decision. The Ministry of Defence will be looking very closely at the judgment. I assure the House that the Ministry of Defence has co-operated fully at each stage of Sergeant Blackman’s case. It will continue to provide support to the family, as it has done since the charges were first brought. I would just say, on the general point, that our Royal Marines have a worldwide reputation as one of the world’s elite fighting forces. They make an incredible contribution to our country and we should pay tribute to them all.

Stephen Twigg: The Disasters Emergency Committee has launched its east Africa crisis appeal. In the context of that crisis, does the Prime Minister share my concern that President Trump is considering major cuts to spending by the US on aid? Will the Government take every opportunity to press the Americans to remain fully part of the global humanitarian system?

Theresa May: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise the severity and urgency of the crisis taking place in east Africa. More than 20 million people face the risk of dying from starvation because of war  and drought. Again, it is this country that is leading the way in delivering life-saving support. We have announced that we will match, pound for pound, the first £5 million donated by the public to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s new east Africa crisis appeal, to which he referred. I assure him that we take every opportunity to ensure that countries around the world recognise the importance of international aid, and of supporting countries when we see terrible disasters such as this famine coming into being. The UK’s record, and what we do, enable us to say to others that they should do more.

Henry Smith: It is my honour to chair the all-party parliamentary group on blood cancer. Today we launched an inquiry into greater awareness of the condition and the patient experience. I seek assurances from my right hon. Friend that the additional £10 billion going into the NHS in this Parliament will in some way be spent on ensuring that we tackle this third-biggest cancer killer.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to raise this subject. Many people have not heard much about this particular cancer, and are probably not much aware of it as an issue. I can assure him about what the NHS is doing. Over the last few years, we have seen a significant improvement in cancer survival rates. We have seen an increase in the number of people being referred on because of potential cancer cases, and an increase in the number of people being treated for cancer. This is a record on which we want to build.

PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE PAYMENTS

Debbie Abrahams: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement regarding the recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the new Personal Independence Payment (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which are due to come into force tomorrow.

Damian Green: Recent legal judgments have interpreted the assessment criteria for personal independence payments in ways that are different from what was originally intended. The Department presented regulations, which clarify the original policy intent, to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I welcome the SSAC’s careful consideration and we are looking closely at its suggestions.
Let me be clear. The SSAC decided that it did not require the regulations to be formally referred to it and would therefore not consult publicly on them. I believe it was right to move quickly to clarify the criteria, and it is clear that the SSAC is not challenging that decision.
I want to make it clear again that this is not a policy change and nor is it intended to make new savings. This is about restoring the original intention of the benefit, which has been expanded by the legal judgments, and providing clarity and certainty for claimants. I reiterate my commitment that there will be no further welfare savings beyond those already legislated for. This will not result in any claimants seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP previously awarded by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Debbie Abrahams: You will recall, Mr Speaker, that on 23 February the Government issued these new regulations by which disabled people or people with a chronic mental health condition would be assessed for eligibility to personal independence payments. These regulations were laid down without any consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee and without any debate.
As the Secretary of State said, the Committee examined this issue on 8 March and sent a letter with its recommendations to the Secretary of State, which was published yesterday. The Committee made a number of recommendations, including the need to consult more widely on the proposed changes and to test or pilot them before they come into force. So will the Secretary of State commit to implementing these recommendations in full before the regulations come into force?
Parliament has had no opportunity to debate the regulations fully, or to vote on them. When will it be able to do so? The Committee found that
“it is possible that some claimants may have been awarded the mobility component or a higher rate of mobility component…following earlier decisions by the Upper Tribunal on this issue.”
That directly contradicts statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work that no one would see a reduction in their PIP award. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to correct the record? Will he guarantee that that will not be the case when claimants are reassessed?
The Government’s decision to change the law on PIP is a clear demonstration of the fact that people with mental health conditions are not given equal treatment. Does the Secretary of State agree with his Department’s new guidance, issued yesterday, which states that mobility impairments caused by psychological issues are “not relevant”? An analysis published today by Scope shows that 89% of PIP cases resulted in successful decisions for claimants following either mandatory reconsideration or appeal. Will the Secretary of State now review the flawed PIP process as a matter of urgency?
We have argued for some time in favour of parity of esteem for mental and physical health. The Prime Minister famously said that there needed to be more support for people with mental health conditions. Will not the Government finally honour that pledge?

Damian Green: Let me deal with the hon. Lady’s questions in turn.
We will of course respond to the letter from the Social Security Advisory Committee. Obviously, we take everything that it has said very seriously. We will also maintain the practice—in which the Government have always engaged—of continuous improvement in the PIP guidance. The assessment guidance is freely available, and can be viewed on gov.uk. We are constantly changing it, and the way to do that is to make parliamentary regulations, which is precisely what we are doing in this case. I am conscious that the hon. Lady has personally prayed against these regulations, which gives Parliament a chance to scrutinise them. That process will go through the normal channels, as it always does.
The hon. Lady asked a number of other detailed questions. I can only repeat what I have said before, and what has been said by my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work: no claimants will see a reduction in the amount of benefit that they were previously awarded by the DWP. The Committee says that a tribunal may have lifted the awards of some people, and it is indeed possible that that has happened. We will not claim back money that those people have received during the period before the new regulations come into force, and no one will receive less than they were awarded by the DWP. That is what I have said all along. [Interruption.] As the hon. Lady knows, reassessment happens regularly in the case of PIP and other benefits.
Let me now respond to a very serious point made by the hon. Lady. I want to clear up the position and reassure people, because I think that millions would be put into a state of unnecessary distress if they thought that PIP was not fair to those with mental health conditions. The truth is that PIP is a much better benefit for people with such conditions than its predecessor, disability living allowance. Under the regulations, people with a cognitive impairment alone can receive the highest rate of the mobility component of PIP. It is simply not the case that people with mental health conditions will not be able to do so. If the hon. Lady reads the regulations, she will see why that has happened.
Even if the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members are not willing to accept what I have said, may I please ask them to go away and look at the facts? The facts are these: 65% of PIP recipients with a mental health condition received the enhanced-rate daily living component, whereas 22% used to receive it under DLA. As for the specific mobility aspect, to which the hon.  Lady referred. 27% of PIP recipients with a mental health condition receive the enhanced-rate mobility component, whereas 9% received it under DLA. It is perfectly clear from the facts that the regulations restore PIP to its original policy intent, and that that policy intent is better for people with mental health conditions than earlier benefits were.

Stephen Crabb: Can my right hon. Friend name any other country that spends as much in direct cash payments to people living with as wide a range of physical, mental and psychological disabilities and illnesses as we do here in the UK? Is that not something we should be proud of?

Damian Green: We should indeed. My right hon. Friend previously did this job, and he and I share the passion to make sure that the benefit system is as fair as possible to those who deserve to receive these benefits. That is why we spend £50 billion a year on disability benefits and why PIP is an improvement on previous benefits, particularly for people with mental health conditions.

Corri Wilson: The Government continually trot out the line that serious mental ill health should be treated in the same way as any other illness, but their response to these rulings betrays the old attitudes and stigmas towards mental illness. They cannot keep shifting the goalposts every time they lose a battle at court. If a person needs help, he or she needs help regardless of the nature of their disability or health condition.
The Scottish Parliament is in the process of taking over responsibility for personal independence payments, and until that time the UK Government need to be consistent and stop mucking people about. So many of the people becoming destitute in our communities, being sanctioned, falling through the safety net, and becoming dependent on food banks, are people with mental health problems. Why will the Government not acknowledge that? Will the Minister back away from this ill-judged move, or are they intent on bulldozing this through regardless of the opinions of this House?

Damian Green: I can only say to the hon. Lady that the premise on which she based that question—which is that those with mental health conditions, as opposed to physical disabilities, are in some way being treated unfairly under this benefit—is simply and demonstrably wrong. I will not weary the House by quoting again the facts I have just quoted, but if we are to have an intelligent discussion about the details of benefit policy—this House deserves to have such a discussion—we have to base it on the facts, and the facts are that PIP is a better benefit for people with mental health conditions than the old disability living allowance.

Justin Tomlinson: The Government are rightly spending an extra £3 billion a year supporting those with long-term health conditions and disabilities. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to continue to improve the system, that should be done in conjunction with the expertise of charities, stakeholders and users, and not be based on ad hoc legal decisions?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend, who obviously has great personal expertise in this area, is precisely right. There is a continuous dialogue between the Department and the charities. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not agree, but that dialogue is very important and I am determined to maintain it precisely so that when we make changes they are practical changes that make sure that the original good intent of the benefit is maintained.

Frank Field: Despite what the Secretary of State says about the current benefit favouring those who do not have physical disabilities, the evidence coming to the Select Committee which is inquiring into PIP shows that those with other disadvantages find it difficult to qualify. Might he look carefully at the form and at the way his staff interpret it for people who do not have physical disabilities and who have difficulties in qualifying?

Damian Green: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a review going on precisely to address the points he very reasonably makes. Clearly, there is a degree of complexity with any benefit and we will need to keep working on it. We are waiting for the review carried out by Paul Gray, chairman of the SSAC. Knowing Paul, I am sure he will have some trenchant recommendations, and we will obviously look at them very carefully and use them as the basis for further improvement of this benefit.

Heidi Allen: While I agree that PIP is indeed a big improvement on DLA and that nobody stands to lose from this change, for me the court ruling has highlighted the fact that there are still flaws in the PIP process and that more can be done for mental health claimants; I know that as I have sat through two PIP assessments myself. Therefore, rather than just legislating to ignore this ruling, should we not use it as a catalyst to look at the whole PIP process from the beginning?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is right that we need continually to look at improvements, and I think they are done better as part of a coherent process rather than as a result of individual court judgments. I am sure that she will agree that the improvements in the benefit system need to go hand in hand with the many improvements we are now beginning to see in the health service’s treatment of people with mental health conditions. All of this must be tackled as a coherent whole across government so that we improve all the services available to people with mental health conditions.

Angela Eagle: I have to say that I am finding an increasing discrepancy between the way that the Secretary of State is describing the PIP benefit and the people who are coming to my advice surgeries in tears having been completely let down by the system. We all want to see a society where we give support to the most vulnerable, and that is who we are talking about here. Will the Secretary of State now undertake to ensure that some of his highest officials come and visit us in our advice surgeries and look at how this system is actually working out on the frontline, because it is not remotely like how he is portraying it today?

Damian Green: We all know from our own constituency surgeries that there are individual cases that might need to be taken up, sometimes simply because people disagree with a decision, or if there are delays. I am absolutely aware of that. [Interruption.] I point out to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who is characteristically chuntering from a sedentary position, that the appeal rate against PIP is extremely low, so actually the facts again do not suggest those kind of problems. But we are absolutely keen to improve this. That is why in the coming weeks we will be setting up service user panels precisely so that we get the real world, on-the-ground experience available to the Department that the hon. Lady wishes us to have.

Desmond Swayne: It is odd to be asked to pilot something that merely restores the status quo ante—or have I misunderstood the committee’s recommendation?

Damian Green: I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s concern. The committee makes a number of recommendations, and, as ever with the SSAC, I will take all of those recommendations very seriously and respond to them fully.

Greg Mulholland: My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has tabled an early-day motion signed by 143 Members, including the Leader of the Opposition. Why are the Government so keen on ignoring this place and Parliament and on bulldozing this unpopular change through? Will the Secretary of State agree to a proper debate in this House on this unpopular measure?

Damian Green: Since, I think, this is the second time that we have discussed this issue in a week, it is hard to argue that Parliament is not having a say. We have followed the usual procedure: we have tabled a statutory instrument, which the hon. Gentleman and his party leader, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) are free to pray against, and that then goes through the usual channels. This is a perfectly normal procedure.

Richard Graham: There appear to be two most frequent misunderstandings about the legal judgments: first, that the Government amendment amounts to a cut, and, secondly, that people with mental health disabilities get less under PIP than under DLA. So will my right hon. Friend confirm again that actually there is no cut at all to people who have been previously awarded through PIP, and, secondly, that actually those with mental health disabilities get more under PIP than they did under DLA?

Damian Green: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that nobody who had an award from the Department for Work and Pensions will have that award reduced, and indeed that PIP is demonstrably a much better benefit than DLA for people with mental health conditions. Is there room for improvement? There is always room for improvement in life.

Stephen Timms: This is a cut and it directly targets people with mental health problems. The regulation, which is taking effect tomorrow, inserts  into the qualifying conditions for PIP, in the section about planning and following a journey, the phrase
“For reasons other than psychological distress”.
Why is psychological distress being carved out in this way, and a cut made as a result?

Damian Green: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong in his premise. A person
“with cognitive or sensory impairments who cannot, due to their impairment, work out where to go, follow directions or deal with unexpected changes in their journey ”
even when the journey is familiar, would score 12 points under descriptor F on mobility activity. I apologise for getting into the technical weeds here, Mr Speaker. Hence, that person would be entitled to the enhanced rate of the mobility component. That is the situation that pertains now, and that is why more people with mental health conditions are getting the higher rate of PIP—three times as many as did so under DLA—so it is simply not the case that this discriminates against people with mental health conditions.

Tania Mathias: Will the Minister ensure that the mobility factor in PIP is maintained? It is important to all of us in the community. It is vital for all of us that our friends and family who have mental health problems, dementia or cognitive problems from strokes are out and about and visible in our community. Can he assure me that the descriptors and assessments are formulated according to need, and that no condition is ever excluded?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend’s last remark is precisely right, and I can give her the assurance that she seeks. PIP is about the effects on daily life or on mobility. It is not based on the underlying condition. That was the key change when PIP was introduced, and of course we are maintaining that.

Kate Green: I want to understand exactly what the Secretary of State said a few moments ago when he said that nobody would face a cut in their benefit. Did I understand him correctly when he said that, while people would not see their initial DWP benefit award cut as a result of these regulations, they could see their benefit reduced to the original award level when the benefit has been increased by a tribunal and these regulations now supersede the judgement of that tribunal?

Damian Green: That is indeed what I said. We think that there may be a handful of people whose appeals have gone through the courts in this very small period, and that money will not be clawed back from them. That is what I said earlier on.

David Burrowes: Will the Secretary of State make it crystal clear that the Government’s original intention for PIP, as outlined in the Welfare Reform Act 2012, remains? It was stated that
“The PIP assessment will look at disabled people as individuals and not just label them by their health condition or impairment.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 148W.]

Damian Green: I am happy to confirm that to my hon. Friend. I think that he and I would agree that that was a significant step forward when it was introduced,  and I am determined that we maintain progress in that direction so that people who have a disability—whether a physical or mental impairment—can lead as full a life as possible.

Sammy Wilson: I agree with the Minister that we need to have a discussion on this whole issue. However, these changes have been introduced without such a discussion, and the assessment has been made that 160,000 current claimants will be ruled out as a result of the changes. Does the Minister dispute that? Is he contesting his own Department’s assessment?

Damian Green: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly misunderstood the effect of the court case. I am not changing anything; I am just putting forward regulations that restore us to where we were in November. The court case said that the regulations were unclear and suggested changes that would indeed, conceivably, apply to very large numbers of people. So what we are doing with these regulations is simply returning to the position that was there before.

Kevin Foster: It is appropriate to be discussing this on the day on which the Devon Partnership NHS Trust’s mental health services have been rated “good” by the Care Quality Commission. This marks some improvement. Given the erroneous comments that we keep on hearing about cuts, will Secretary of State confirm that the constituents who are getting in touch with me who have had an award from the DWP will not see any reduction in what they are receiving?

Damian Green: I extend my congratulations to the Devon Partnership NHS Trust. I am glad to hear that mental health services are good in my hon. Friend’s part of the world and yes, absolutely, those who have had an award from the DWP will continue to get that award in the normal way.

Owen Smith: Further to the Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), will he confirm that he is saying that some people who have been awarded additional resources by a tribunal will see their income cut as a result of these regulations? Will he also confirm that an extraordinary number—89%—of the relatively low number of appeals relating to PIP are overturned? Does that not show that there is something deeply wrong with the system?

Damian Green: I think the problem that the hon. Gentleman identifies with the system as it is running at the moment is that a huge number of the very small number of people who go to appeal introduce new evidence during the appeal process. That is the main reason why the figures are as he says. It is clearly better all round—not least for the avoidance of delay for claimants—if we can get all the medical evidence in at the start of the process. That might well preclude the necessity of any kind of reassessment or appeal in the first place.

David Rutley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the clarification that he has provided today. What steps is he taking to meet and engage with charities and other stakeholders to clarify the impact of these regulations?

Damian Green: The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work and I are in constant contact with charities and other groups concerned with this area, precisely because we want to improve the system in a systematic and coherent way so that we are not simply responding to individual cases in front of the courts. I am sure everyone would agree that that is a more sensible way to proceed in continuing the improvements we have seen under PIP.

Chris Stephens: I asked the Secretary of State this question two weeks ago. If he is arguing that the purpose of PIP is to cover the extra costs that people incur because of a disability, why are those with mental health conditions being paid a lower rate than someone with a physical disability if they struggle to plan or follow a journey?

Damian Green: They are not. I can only repeat what I have said before, and if necessary, I will quote the facts again, or the detailed case that I gave to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I could go into the details, but I suspect that your patience would be tested by that, Mr Speaker. Do you want me to read the descriptors out again? [Interruption.] But seriously, the point is that it is perfectly possible to qualify for the standard rate or the enhanced rate purely with a mental health condition, so it is not the case that people with mental health conditions are discriminated against.

Philip Hollobone: You have just indicated, Mr Speaker, that your patience would not be tested were the Secretary of State to give a detailed example that might clarify the situation for the House. May I invite him so to do?

Damian Green: Let me read it out again. A person
“with a cognitive impairment who cannot, due to their impairment, work out where to go, follow directions or deal with unexpected changes in their journey”,
even when the journey is familiar, would score 12 points under descriptor F on mobility activity 1, which covers planning and following journeys, and hence be entitled to the enhanced rate of the mobility component. Examples of such conditions could include dementia or a learning disability such as Down’s syndrome. I hope that that reassures you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House.

Derek Twigg: I want to press the Secretary of State on the question of assessments. Will he look again at the quality and professionalism involved? I just cannot understand why some of the people who come to see me have not been awarded their benefit. I have had experience of cases such as these over a number of years now, and I have never come across such difficult cases as those I have seen recently.

Damian Green: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am already doing that. As I said in answer to a previous question, the chairman of the SSAC is doing one of his regular reports on PIP as a whole, and that will focus very much on the quality of assessments. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we are all concerned to ensure that the assessments are not only of high quality but consistent across the country. That is an important improvement that I want to see in the system.

Andrew Stephenson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Government are investing more into benefits for disabled people and more into mental health than ever before?

Damian Green: I can confirm that, and I have already quoted the specific figure for disability benefits. We now spend £11.4 billion on mental health services every year, and we will be spending more on disability benefits in every year of this Parliament than was spent in 2010.

Margaret Ritchie: In the view of the mental health charity Mind, the new regulations and guidance contradict the stated aims of the primary legislation. What information has been transferred to the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland, where parity applies, regarding the new guidance? Will the Secretary of State ensure that the regulations are taken off the table to allow a full debate in Parliament and to ensure that nobody with a mental health impairment is financially penalised in any way?

Damian Green: I can only repeat that the regulations, which are being returned to their original state, do not discriminate against people with mental conditions. If anyone observing these proceedings is unnecessarily worried by that assertion, I regret that. I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work has made direct contact to ensure that information is flowing properly.

Ian Lucas: The only clarity and certainty that PIP is bringing to my constituents is real distress every day. At 12.14 pm today, I received an email that said:
“I would be grateful if you would contact PIP and address my complaint about taking PIP off me. I do fear that this has caused me to consider taking my own life”.
Complaints of that type come in to our constituency surgeries on a daily basis. The system is broken. It needs to be completely revisited and reconstructed. It cannot be mended.

Damian Green: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Any benefits system will obviously have difficult individual cases, and decisions have to be made, but to say that the whole system is broken is going much too far. I can only point out that just 3% of all PIP claims are overturned on appeal, which suggests that the benefit is largely working for the vast majority of people who receive it, but there will always be individual cases where people disagree with the assessment.

Margaret Ferrier: It is clear from the Social Security Advisory Committee’s letter to the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work that there is some confusion outside the Department about the policy intent and the psychological distress of planning and following a journey. We need much greater communication from the Department, so when we can expect an updated version of the PIP assessment guide?

Damian Green: As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, we redo the assessment guide on a regular basis, and the next changes will be available in the next couple of months. It is freely available on the internet for hon.  Members to view. It is not some secret guide that goes out to assessors from the Department; all the guidance is public.

Liz McInnes: Only last week, I was contacted by a constituent who has been refused PIP despite having previously been in receipt of DLA. She managed to get to her assessment only because her daughter took her and supported her through it. However, the physiotherapist who did the assessment said that her mental health issues were insignificant because she had managed to attend and to communicate with him. Does the Secretary of State agree that for the process to be fair, the person doing the assessment should, as a bare minimum, be qualified in the appropriate medical specialty?

Damian Green: It is obviously impossible to generalise from one case, but if the hon. Lady wants me to look at that case, I will be happy to do so. We are determined to maintain the highest levels of professionalism among the healthcare professionals who do the assessments.

Neil Gray: The transition from DLA to PIP has been incredibly distressing, and the new assessment criteria and the number of Motability cars that have been returned only to be reissued on appeal are just two examples of why. Now there is this rushed, unscrutinised decision. Given the repeated questions from Members on the Opposition Benches about constituency cases, is the Secretary of State concerned about the erosion of our constituents’ trust in the system?

Damian Green: No, because I do not believe that to be the case. Of the many people who receive PIP, vast numbers find it satisfactory and a better benefit than DLA. Specifically on mental health conditions, far more people receive PIP than received DLA, so I just do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s basic analysis of the situation.

Clive Efford: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that no PIP assessors are required to turn down a quota of their assessments? I find it impossible to understand some of the decisions they make. There can be an arm’s length of medical evidence in front of them, but they turn some people down, particularly those with mental health issues. If he does not know the answer, will he go away and investigate the situation? Something is wrong. So many examples have been given to him that he cannot dismiss them as the odd case.

Damian Green: I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that no pass or fail quota is given to any assessor.

Lisa Cameron: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, people from across the UK continually contact me to say that the process contains little assessment of psychological problems and does not seek information from mental health practitioners. The Secretary of State must be aware that a cognitive impairment is just not the same as a mental health problem. In fact, neither dementia nor a learning disability, the examples he gave, is a  mental health problem, so he should go back, do his homework and find out what a mental health problem actually is.

Damian Green: I can give other examples that do include mental health issues, but I understand the hon. Lady’s point that there are obviously different forms of condition. Cognitive impairment is not necessarily the same as a mental health impairment, which covers a much wider and, in many cases, different range of conditions. However, all of them are covered fairly by PIP, so the contention from Opposition Members that the benefit is somehow bad at source is wrong. I can see that when I look at the number of people receiving it, particularly those with mental health conditions, who have not received any benefit in the past. I hope that the House will acknowledge that fact.

Michael Fabricant: I have been listening to these exchanges, and I am trying to judge to what extent there is controversy over PIP. There clearly is controversy in this Chamber, and I do from time to time get letters from constituents regarding PIP. However, will my right hon. Friend indicate what percentage of total claims are disputed?

Damian Green: As I have just said, 3% of all claims are overturned on appeal. Now 3% represents many cases, and as I have said various times today, I am always looking to improve the situation and ensure that assessments are better and more consistent. However, having only 3% overturned does not give rise to the picture painted by many Opposition Members that the system is in some way broken.

Julie Cooper: Does the Minister accept that many people with mental health issues who apply for PIP are so distressed by the whole process that they never even go to appeal when they are turned down? Also, far from spending more on this, we are actually spending less as a proportion of our GDP.

Damian Green: I am not entirely clear about the hon. Lady’s last point. I am unsure whether she wants a target percentage of GDP for particular benefits, which seems a slightly odd way to run the welfare state. On her first point, I do not want to weary the House by repeating what I have said before, but ensuring that people with mental health conditions have proper access to benefits is and always has been extremely difficult. We are spending so much money across Government—£11.4 billion this year—on mental health conditions precisely to remove some of the barriers preventing people from claiming benefits to which they are entitled.

Alan Brown: Earlier, the Secretary of State blithely said that there would be further updates and guidance in a couple of months. A couple of months is not good enough. What is he doing now to make sure that assessors have the correct information to properly assess claimants and provide them with the support they need?

Damian Green: Assessors work from the PIP assessment guide, which is available for scrutiny by Members and the public. Assessors are given that guidance in the most transparent and public way possible.

Lilian Greenwood: The Royal College of Psychiatrists, charities including Rethink  Mental Illness and Scope, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and many of our constituents all tell us that the Government are failing properly to support all disabled people who need help. Now the Social Security Advisory Committee has said that the Government should not proceed with the changes without further testing and consultation. What does it take to get the Secretary of State to listen?

Damian Green: I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of what the SSAC said. The SSAC has the power to consult if it wants to recommend that we should not proceed, and it has specifically decided not to do that kind of consultation. Her characterisation of what the SSAC has said is off beam.

Gavin Newlands: Thousands of disabled people who rely on the Motability scheme have had their car removed by this Government. In November 2016 the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work said that the Government were looking at allowing PIP claimants to keep their car pending appeal, and possibly at widening access to the scheme. Three weeks ago the Prime Minister was unable to answer my question and update the House on the progress of that review, and she promised to write an as-yet undelivered letter to me. Can the Secretary of State update the House today?

Damian Green: Not with any detail. We are conducting a review, and when that review is finished I will update the House.

Mary Glindon: rose—

Chris Bryant: rose—

John Bercow: I call Mrs Mary Glindon.

Mary Glindon: Further to a previous question, Muscular Dystrophy UK has said today that figures show that 900 mobility vehicles a week are being removed from people due to the PIP reforms but that many of the vehicles are subsequently returned on appeal. Will the Government ensure that a mobility vehicle cannot be taken away from any individual until there is a final decision on their eligibility for the enhanced rate?

Damian Green: We constantly work closely with Motability and, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), we are currently reviewing the whole scheme, so I pray the House’s patience while we conduct that review.

Chris Bryant: Thank you very much for spotting me, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State seems to think—he has said it several times now—that just because we prayed against the statutory instrument, we are bound to have a one-and-a-half hour debate and a vote. That is completely untrue. The only person who can guarantee a debate and a vote is the Secretary of State. I promise not to tell anyone else, but if he could stand up now and be completely unambiguous in telling us that we will have a debate and a vote in this Chamber, we would be very grateful.

Damian Green: In his long and distinguished career, the hon. Gentleman has been shadow Leader of the House, so he knows perfectly well that such things are a matter for the usual channels. It is therefore somewhat above my pay grade.

VISIBLE RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS: EUROPEAN COURT RULING

Maria Miller: (Urgent Question): To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities if she will make a statement on the recent Court of Justice of the European Union ruling allowing employers to ban workers from wearing religious dress and symbols in the workplace.

Caroline Dinenage: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this important issue and for giving the Government an opportunity to inform and, I hope, reassure the House about the two Court of Justice of the European Union judgments issued yesterday. The Government are completely opposed to discrimination, including on grounds of gender or religion, or both. It is the right of all women to choose how they dress, and we do not believe that the judgments change that. Exactly the same legal protections apply today as applied before the rulings.
In both the Achbita case and the Bougnaoui case, the judgment was that there was no direct discrimination, but that there was some discrimination. A rule is directly discriminatory if it treats someone less favourably because of their sex, race, religion or whatever. A rule is indirectly discriminatory if, on the face of it, it treats everyone the same, but some people, because of their race, religion, sex and so on, find it harder to comply than others do. Indirect discrimination may be justifiable if an employer is acting in a proportionate manner to achieve a legitimate aim.
The judgments confirm the existing long-standing position of EU and domestic law that an employer’s dress code, where it applies to and is applied in the same way to all employees, may be justifiable if the employer can show legitimate and proportionate grounds for it. Various cases show that such an employer needs to be prepared to justify those grounds in front of a court or tribunal if need be. That will remain the case and that is the case with these judgments, which will now revert to the domestic courts.
I am aware of some concern that the judgments potentially conflict with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, particularly in the case of Nadia Eweida, the British Airways stewardess banned from wearing a small crucifix but whose case the ECHR upheld. We do not believe that the different judgments are in conflict. Both the CJEU and the ECHR were trying to assess the balance in each case between the religious needs of the employee and the needs of the employer. In Eweida, the assessment favoured the employee; in another ECHR case, and also in the Achbita case, the assessment favoured the employer. We will still take action to ensure that the current legal position is set out. We will be working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to update guidance for employers on dealing with religion or belief in the workplace. The guidance will be revised to take account of the CJEU judgments, too. We will make it absolutely clear to all concerned that the Equality Act 2010 and the rights of women and religious employees remain unchanged.
Like any judgment of the CJEU, for the time being, Achbita and Bougnaoui need to be taken into account by domestic courts and tribunals as they consider future cases. The law is clear and remains unchanged. However, because of our absolute commitment to ensuring that discrimination and prejudice are never encouraged or sanctioned, we will keep the issue under very close review.

Maria Miller: In this country, we have a long tradition of respecting religious freedom and, frankly, many people will listen in disbelief to the Court’s ruling that a corporate multinational such as G4S risks having its corporate neutrality undermined by a receptionist in Belgium wearing a headscarf. At what point did the law decide that expressing religious belief through a cross, a turban or a headscarf is a threat to organisational neutrality? Here in the House of Commons, our staff pride themselves on their neutrality, but will such organisations be forced to consider this new ruling? If not, in what circumstances could an organisation legitimately require such neutrality from its workers? Surely there are serious potential implications for those who deliver public services.
One group is specifically affected—Muslim women, who already experience twice the unemployment rate of the general population. The Government need to monitor the situation carefully to ensure that employers do not use the ruling to effectively exclude thousands of Muslim women from the workplace.
We are leaving the EU soon, but the ruling will potentially continue to influence the way in which the Equality Act is interpreted by the courts. Parliamentarians need clarity, workers need clarity and employers need clarity, and we want to ensure that this ruling does not have damaging consequences for freedom of religious belief in our country.

Caroline Dinenage: My right hon. Friend is right to raise this case. As I said, the UK has some of the strongest equality legislation in the world and our laws give people robust protection from religious discrimination in the workplace. It is and remains unlawful to directly discriminate against someone because of their religion or to create spurious rules that would prevent them from wearing religious clothing or jewellery. Employers can enforce a dress code, but it must be for proportionate and legitimate reasons, and must equally apply to all employees. If an employer wants to have a neutral dress code with no religious symbols being worn, it must apply equally to all employees and all religions.
Dress codes are a matter for individual employers and will depend on the particular type of work involved, the environment and the safety considerations, above all. The CJEU has found that these cases would constitute indirect discrimination and has referred them back to the national courts to consider whether, based on the specifics, they would be unlawful. The UK’s legal position has not changed. The EHRC has already published guidance for employers on religion and belief in the workplace, and we will work with it to update that guidance to take account of these rulings and to carefully explain how they should be interpreted in UK workplaces. But I must reiterate that this Government are absolutely committed to supporting people into work whatever their background, making Britain a country that works for everyone and not just the privileged few.

Sarah Champion: I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for raising this important issue. The ruling is not as clearcut as press articles would have us believe, but it does raise real concerns about religious freedom in the workplace, including for Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab. When making their ruling, the judges relied on the concept of workplace policies that require neutrality. Neutrality has specific cultural significance in Belgium and other European countries, based on their particular meaning of secularism, which does not resonate in Britain. Does the Minister agree that this concept of neutrality is illogical, as a customer, patient or service user could not make a valid assumption as to the religious persuasion of a company, or perceive that a company is particularly favouring one religious group or another, by virtue of how its employees dress?
Women and men must be allowed to choose their expression of faith. Simply put, this judgment is not consistent with the British liberal and human rights tradition. Of real concern are the implications that this may now have for faith communities. Already, the far right across Europe is rallying on the judgment. I thank the Minister for making a clear statement today that people can express their faith, in a professional manner, in the workplace, but can she confirm that this Government believe that preventing women from wearing the hijab, as exampled in this case, is simply and unconditionally wrong?
What is the Government’s position on the concept of a dress code for staff that requires neutrality in the workplace? I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that she will be working with the EHRC on updating the guidance to employers on this ruling. Will she confirm that it will reinforce the rights of employees in the UK to express their religious freedom?
G4S holds a number of Government contracts. Has the Minister reinforced with G4S, the employer in this situation, its employees’ rights to wear clothing necessary for their religious practice in the UK?

Caroline Dinenage: It would be helpful if I were to talk a little about the background to this, in order to aid our wider understanding. We are dealing with two cases here. The first, Achbita, was about whether a dress code banning the outward expression of personal belief was directly or indirectly discriminatory against a female Muslim who was sacked for wearing a headscarf. The second, Bougnaoui, concerned the same point, but it also raised the issue of whether a customer’s request not to be served by an employee wearing a headscarf can be a genuine occupational requirement. The ruling confirmed the current position under EU and domestic discrimination law: that a dress code that applies and is applied in the same way to all employees does not constitute direct discrimination but may constitute indirect discrimination. However, importantly, an employer’s willingness to take account of a customer’s wishes about staff wearing religious dress does not constitute a genuine occupational requirement. It is very important to point that out.
As I have stated, employers can enforce a dress code, but it must be proportionate and legitimate, and must apply equally to all employees. If an employer wants a neutral dress code with no religious or political symbols being worn, that must equally apply to all employees and religions. However, it remains unlawful to directly  discriminate against someone because of their religion and to create any kind of spurious rules that will prevent the wearing of religious clothing or jewellery. The Government take this very seriously. Hate crime of any form will not be tolerated. The Government will not stand by and let that happen. We are very clear about where we stand on this. People will be protected in their workplace and, as I said, we will be reinforcing the guidance on religion and belief in the workplace which the EHRC has published. We will be making sure that employers are well aware of their responsibilities in that way.

Eric Pickles: I am very pleased to hear that the Government are going to issue new guidelines. I hope that they will reflect British values, which demand that Muslim women should be able to wear the hijab, that Sikhs should be able to wear the turban, that Jewish people should be able to wear a kippah and that Christians can wear a cross. If we remove that basic right, the nature of British values changes. Any company that wants to be neutral and to deny its employees the ability to express their religion takes away from those employees and is fundamentally not British.

Caroline Dinenage: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Government believe, and I believe, that people need to be able to feel strong in their religious identities, and we are ensuring that the voices of people of faith can be heard up and down this country. As now, any dress code or dress ban that an employer imposes must be for legitimate and proportionate reasons, and the employer must be prepared to defend it before a court or tribunal if necessary. Ultimately, those dress codes are for individual employers to decide on, but we are clear that any form of discrimination on the grounds of religion or faith will not be tolerated and is unlawful.

Neil Gray: This is an incredibly sensitive issue which will cause concern across these isles. It is clear that right-wing leaders across Europe have already attempted to misrepresent the ruling for their own ends, so I hope that we will see clear leadership from the UK Government to counter that rhetoric and ensure that it does not take hold here.
What the Minister has already said and what the Prime Minister said earlier is a good start. We should be absolutely clear that women and men should be free to choose what they wear, and we certainly should not be discriminatory on the basis of religion. The Court of Justice judgment ruled that uniformity is key in any workplace policy on religious or political neutrality, and that this cannot be applied on an ad hoc basis. However, there are concerns about the potential for this to be hijacked by some for the purpose of anti-Muslim or similarly intolerant sentiment. If Police Scotland can decide to include the hijab as part of its uniform, what action will the UK Government take to ensure that discrimination against individuals of any religion will not be tolerated in the workplace?

Caroline Dinenage: The Prime Minister was very clear that what a woman wears is her choice and no one else’s. Obviously, there is a clear difference in the following respect: it would be ridiculous to presume that, if someone wanted to wear loose clothing or dangling jewellery  when working in or around machinery, it was sensible to allow them to do so in contravention of any health and safety considerations. But in normal day-to-day jobs it would seem to be very ill-advised to prevent people from wearing the items of clothing that reflect their religious faith or belief.
On what the hon. Gentleman says about the far-right response, let me say that we have one of the strongest legislative frameworks in the world to protect communities from hostility, violence and bigotry. We keep these policies under review all the time, as we want to ensure that they remain effective and appropriate in the face of any kind of new and emerging threats. He must be assured that those who perpetrate hate crimes of any kind will be punished with the full force of the law.

Michael Fabricant: I am heartened by the Minister’s robust response to this. My experience in France has been that the attitude there towards the wearing of the hijab has exacerbated problems between different sections of the community. Just the other day, I saw a Sikh police officer wearing a turban, which just demonstrates our tolerant attitude in this country. So I commend the Minister and ask—as I must do to keep in order—that she maintains this position.

Caroline Dinenage: Multiculturalism and the multiplicity of different faiths and religions in this country is one of our great strengths. We should recognise that many people follow their faith and that some people follow none, but we want a society that treats people equally and with respect, whatever their faith happens to be, or if they have none.

Rushanara Ali: The Minister will appreciate how distressing the ruling is, not only for British Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab but for many other faith communities. She will be aware that G4S, the British company involved, has form. It presided over a shambolic temporary jobs arrangement during the Olympics, when the British Army had to be brought in. First, will G4S’s Government contracts be reviewed, because what it has done  is unacceptable and un-British? Secondly, once the Government have worked with the EHRC to reform the guidance, will the Minister report to Parliament to reassure us that, as Members on both sides of the House have stated, British values, which are distinct from the ruling, are upheld, and that the right of women to wear what they wish to wear in the workplace, within reason and with reasonable accommodation, is upheld?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out that women should be respected; indeed, all workers and their religious individuality should be respected. Employers have a right to enforce a dress code, but she is right to point out that certain employers interpret that right differently from others. We certainly take religious tolerance, and tolerance more generally, into consideration when considering Government contracts. This situation is a shame, because we are very tolerant in this country and we are making massive progress. Some 45% more Muslim women were in work in 2015 than in 2011. We know that there is much more to do to  ensure that no one is left behind, but we are committed to supporting people in their workplace, whatever their background, which is why it is so important that this issue was brought to the House today.

David Burrowes: Will the Minister confirm that in this country a member of an airline’s cabin staff or a receptionist has the right to express their faith freely by wearing a cross or a headscarf, and that that cannot be supressed by any so-called neutral dress code?

Caroline Dinenage: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that people are entitled to express their religious thoughts or beliefs in what they wear. It becomes an issue only if there is some kind of health and safety aspect. As I have said before, companies are entitled to enforce their own dress code, but it is very clear that that dress code must apply equally to all employees, whatever their faith, religion or gender, and the Government are keen to promote that.

Sylvia Hermon: I am very troubled by the judgments. If the provisions of the CJEU’s judgments are held to be directly effective, they can be relied on by employers in the UK without further ado. In my estimation, that would be deplorable. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are keeping open the option of legislating—and, indeed, the option of introducing emergency legislation—to make sure that the United Kingdom’s very fine laws on discrimination, which uphold one’s right to manifest one’s views and religion, are not undermined by the CJEU? The assurance that the Government will turn to legislation, should the need arise, would be very helpful.

Caroline Dinenage: It is important to point out that the CJEU judgement is advice that goes back to the nations that brought forward the cases. Each country has the right to enforce the judgment in the way it sees fit. I am confident that the UK has some of the strongest equalities legislation in the world, including the Equality Act 2010, which enshrines equality in domestic law. Nevertheless, we will always keep that under review to ensure that people continue to be protected in the best possible way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Mr Lefroy, what has happened? The feller was standing earlier. The House wants to hear him.

Jeremy Lefroy: Mr Speaker, I apologise: my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) asked the question I was going to ask, and I did not want to detain the House any longer.

John Bercow: Extraordinary self-effacement; the hon. Gentleman is setting a very dangerous precedent.

Matthew Offord: Although the judgment applies to men and women, does the Minister agree that it sends an appalling message, particularly to Muslim women in places such as my constituency? Will she reassure me that she will take tangible action to reassure specific faith communities that the United Kingdom certainly will not go down this route?

Caroline Dinenage: Yes, that is really important, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to point it out. The Government are working so hard to tackle the barriers faced by different black and minority ethnic groups. We are engaging Muslim communities through a number of faith and integration projects; we are developing a new English language offer that will be targeted at Muslim women but available to other groups; and we are trialling new and innovative ways for Jobcentre Plus to engage with and tailor their services to BME communities. I hate to think that all the good work we are doing to build trust and faith in communities would ever be undermined.

Chuka Umunna: I do not like this word “tolerate.” In this country, we do not tolerate people; we respect and embrace all cultures. Despite that, we know that Islamophobia is not only widespread but rampant. As a solicitor, for the best part of a decade I advised employees and employers on employment law. My worry is that those who read the reports on the CJEU decision will see it as a green light to engage in further discrimination in the workplace. What specifically will the Government do to ensure that employers do not take from the judgments the idea that they can carry on discriminating, particularly against Muslim women, who are more likely to be discriminated against in the workplace than many other groups?

Caroline Dinenage: As I have already made clear, we are working closely with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to update guidance for employers on dealing with religion or belief in the workplace. Nevertheless, we will continue to revise the guidance so that it takes account of the judgment. We want to be absolutely clear to all concerned that the Equality Act remains unchanged, as do the rights of women and religious employees, which we will continue to protect.

David Davies: I am sure I am not alone in seeing a big difference between a headscarf, crucifix or turban, and the burqa or niqab. How will the judgment affect the two police forces of which I am aware that currently state they are willing to consider applications from female police officers who might want to wear a full niqab or burqa?

Caroline Dinenage: The Government wholeheartedly support the invaluable work being done by people throughout the country who are inspired by that faith. If it is safe for them to continue to wear their religious garments while doing their job, we very much feel they should be encouraged to do so.

Shabana Mahmood: This ruling sends an appalling message to faith communities in our countries, and many visibly religious people at work today will feel more scrutinised and more insecure as a result. The ruling also creates a lower threshold for religious freedom than we enjoy under UK legislation. Many thousands of people in my constituency are affected; they need a clear and continuing signal from the Government that they will support our national legal settlement. I am grateful for what the Minister has already said on that, but how will she and the Government monitor the ruling’s impact on employees currently in  the workplace? What steps will she take to prevent any further marginalisation of visibly religious people in the workplace?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue. The Government believe that people need to be able to feel strong in their religious identities. We have to continue to ensure that the voices of people of faith are heard in Government. We should recognise that people are completely free to follow their faith. We want a society that treats people equally and with respect, so we will always keep this matter under review and take the necessary action if and when it becomes apparent that we need to.

Philip Hollobone: This is a complicated issue, but my constituents in Kettering would view it as yet another inappropriate judgment from a European court, telling us what to do when we have not sought its advice in the first place. Will the Minister clarify what power the ECJ will have over this country once we have left the European Union?

Caroline Dinenage: We know we are leaving the European Union. We are committed to a successful withdrawal and to forming a new relationship with Europe, and at that stage the court will have no power. We will preserve all the rights that employees currently enjoy and ensure that the robust protections that European legislation affords them are enshrined in domestic law.

Sarah Olney: The Minister talks about neutral dress codes applying to both genders, but does she accept that even if a no-headscarves rule applies to both genders it effectively discriminates against only women, and that a no-turbans rule effectively discriminates against only men? Is not something more robust required?

Caroline Dinenage: It is absolutely clear that a no-headscarves rule or a no-turbans rule would be illegal, as it would constitute direct discrimination. The only form of discrimination that is allowed is a blanket ban on any form of religious clothing or symbols, under the legislation referred to in yesterday’s court case.

Andrew Stephenson: Many of my constituents feel that the ban clearly targets Muslim women who wish to wear the hijab. Given the improving but still below-average employment rate among Muslim women, does the Minister not feel that the ruling sends out completely the wrong message as we try to build a country that works for everyone?

Caroline Dinenage: It does send out an unhelpful message, particularly as this Government take really seriously discrimination in any form. We will renew our efforts to ensure that no one is held back by any outdated attitudes or practices.

Yasmin Qureshi: A person’s ability to do 99.9% of jobs, including that of security guard, is not affected by whether they wear a skull cap, headscarf, turban, cross, mangalsutra or tilaka. Can this ECJ judgment be rejected in domestic law to prevent confusion among employers about its having any bearing on this country? As G4S receives public funding and is discriminating against people, can its contract be reviewed?

Caroline Dinenage: Domestic equality legislation is very clear. Employers do not need to change any legitimate policies on dress code in the workplace, but it is vital that employers and employees understand what the law allows them to do, and that is what this is about. We do not want any employers mistakenly thinking that this ruling gives them any authority to sack public-facing staff who wear headscarves or any other religious symbols. Those protections are already clear in domestic law, and we will always make sure that they are most strongly enforced.

David Rutley: At a time when many Members of this House—both across parties and in the Government—are working to promote the principles of freedom of religion or belief internationally, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we work hard to protect long-standing religious freedoms here at home?

Caroline Dinenage: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have one of the strongest legislative frameworks in the world to protect communities from hostility, violence and bigotry. We continue to promote that on the world stage, as it is fundamental to everything this country stands for—tolerance and the embracing of other cultures as we make them part of our national identity.

Stephen Timms: This is a worrying judgment for all people of faith. Has the Minister seen that the Church of England this morning described the judgment as “troubling”? Will she confirm that she understands why the Church of England has taken that view, and that it is right to do so?

Caroline Dinenage: The right hon. Gentleman is right to bring that up, because the judgment applies to religious symbols, whatever the faith of the individual who happens to be wearing them. The ruling will be equally troubling for the Church of England, for people of Muslim faith, for people of whatever faith and indeed for people of none.

Wes Streeting: Sophia Dar, a Muslim woman in my constituency, was attacked in broad daylight on Oxford Street, one of the busiest shopping streets in the world, let alone London, by a man who forcibly tried to remove her hijab from her head. Do not these judgments reinforce a sense that other people have the right to tell people of faith what they can and cannot wear and how they choose to practise or not practise their faith? In addition to the very welcome guidelines to which the Minister has committed today, will she look at what we can do to enforce existing laws that protect people from religious discrimination so that the attacker of my constituent is brought to very heavy justice?

Caroline Dinenage: I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. That sounds like a very distressing thing to happen. Those who perpetrate hate crimes of any kind will be punished with the full force of the law. We are committed to tackling hate crime and have produced a new hate crime action plan that focuses on reducing hate crime, increasing reporting and increasing support for victims.

Rupa Huq: We have all heard about hijabs being ripped from girls’ heads by people emboldened by the referendum result—admittedly, that was an unintended consequence of the result. I am encouraged by the Minister’s words. Will she do all she can to ensure that this illiberal judgment, which has nothing to do with workplace performance, does not have its own unwelcome by-product? Apparently, Muslim women are 70% more likely to be unemployed than non-Muslim women. The judgment could be a recruiting sergeant for Islamic extremist groups. Will she have a word with colleagues about proposed cuts to provision for English for speakers of other languages?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady is right: hate crime, whatever form it takes, should never be tolerated. It should be punished with the full force of the law, and the Government take that very seriously.

Carol Monaghan: I am heartened to hear the Minister’s comments and her very clear guidelines, but I am still concerned that this ruling may allow intolerant employers to ban symbols such as the hijab or even a cross on the forehead. How are the Government planning to monitor employers, and how will they make it possible for employees to report problems without fear of repercussions?

Caroline Dinenage: That is an important question. We are very clear that employers do not need to change legitimate policies on dress codes in the workplace, but it is vital that employers and employees understand what the law allows. Employers cannot act unscrupulously in some mistaken interpretation of the law, and employees must not feel that they cannot report any incidents of this kind.

Helen Goodman: When I was married, as part of the service my husband gave me a ring. We all know that that is culturally loaded. Wedding rings are allowed, but headscarves on young Muslim women are a problem. I ask the Minister for the fifth time—unlike the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—what she will do about G4S.

Caroline Dinenage: Ironically, my husband did the same—I have a ring, too. The hon. Lady makes a valid point, and it is one that we keep under consideration. This is not a domestic issue and it has not happened with G4S in the UK, but we take it very seriously and will keep it in mind when making any decisions.

Kate Green: I welcome the tone of the exchanges in the House and I know that they will be very well received by the many Muslim and Sikh constituents whom I have the honour to represent. I also welcome what the Minister said about new guidance to be produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. May I ask her to ensure that the EHRC has the resources necessary to carry out its enforcement function, about which, as she knows, there are significant concerns.

Caroline Dinenage: Let me be clear: this is existing EHRC guidance, but we will work with the commission to make sure that in the light of the most recent judgment it is updated and entirely fit for purpose. I am confident  that the EHRC has sufficient funds to do its job efficiently. The hon. Lady might be interested to know that even after some recent changes in its workforce, the commission still has four times more staff than we have in the Government Equalities Office.

Rob Marris: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British Sikhs. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for again this year hosting the Vaisakhi celebration, on 18 April in Speaker’s Rooms. I welcome the Minister’s statement today, but will Her Majesty’s Government make representations to the Governments of France and Belgium, which overtly have state-sponsored discrimination against Sikhs, including British Sikhs who move to France or Belgium?

Caroline Dinenage: That is a matter for my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but we will have that conversation with them. We take discrimination seriously and will continue to ensure that no one is held back by any outdated attitude or practice.

Sylvia Hermon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: We tend to come to points of order after statements. We can hear from the hon. Lady at that point.

Sylvia Hermon: It pertains to this statement.

John Bercow: The spirit of generosity gets the better of me. If the hon. Lady is extremely brief, we will hear her point of order.

Sylvia Hermon: I am enormously grateful to you, Mr Speaker. This is a very important point. The great repeal Bill will incorporate all existing EU law at the moment of Brexit. It will therefore incorporate the two judgments of the European Court of Justice that we have just discussed. Will you seek confirmation from the Prime Minister and her Government, if possible, that the two judgments will not be allowed to remain part of our domestic law one moment past Brexit?

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, but I fear she invests me with a power that I do not possess. It is not for me to ask the Government to take a position one way or the other. All I would say is that I have no reason to dissent from her interpretation of the legal and, in a sense, parliamentary position. However, the whole point of that upcoming Bill to be introduced by the Government is that it imports from Europe into our law a body of material with the option then to preserve, to amend or to repeal, case by case, as the Government propose and ultimately the House decides. On the basis of the hon. Lady’s expression of interest in this important matter, I feel certain that, when any such matter comes up for consideration, she will leap from her seat to acquaint the House with her views, and we all look forward to that.



CLASS 4 NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS

Philip Hammond: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on national insurance contributions paid by the self-employed.
As I set out in the Budget last Wednesday, the gap between benefits available to the self-employed and those in employment has closed significantly over the last few years. Most notably, the introduction of the new state pension in April 2016 is worth an additional £1,800 to a self-employed person for each year of retirement. It remains our judgment, as I said last week, that the current differences in benefit entitlement no longer justify the scale of difference in the level of total national insurance contributions paid in respect of employees and the self-employed.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that there has been a sharp increase in self-employment over the last few years. Our analysis suggests that a significant part of that increase is driven by differences in tax treatment. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that the cost to the public finances of this trend is around £5 billion this year alone, and the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the parallel increase in incorporation will cost more than £9 billion a year by the end of the Parliament. That represents a significant risk to the tax base, and thus to the funding of our vital public services.
The measures I announced in the Budget sought to reflect more fairly the differences in entitlement in the contributions made by the self-employed. The Government continue to believe that addressing this unfairness is the right approach. However, since the Budget, parliamentary colleagues and others have questioned whether the proposed increase in class 4 contributions is compatible with the tax lock commitments made in our 2015 manifesto.
Ahead of last year’s autumn statement, the Prime Minister and I decided that however difficult the fiscal challenges we face, the tax lock and spending ring fence commitments we have made for this Parliament should be honoured in full. I made that clear in my autumn statement to this House. As far as national insurance contributions are concerned, the locks were legislated for in the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Act 2015. When the Bill was introduced, it was made clear by Ministers that the lock would apply only to class 1 contributions. The measures I set out in the Budget fall within the constraints set out by the tax lock legislation and the spending ring fences. However, it is clear from discussions with colleagues over the last few days that this legislative test of the manifesto commitment does not meet a wider understanding of the spirit of that commitment.
It is very important both to me and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that we comply with not just the letter but the spirit of the commitments that were made. Therefore, as I set out in my letter this morning to the Chair of the Select Committee on the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), I have decided not to proceed with the class 4 NICs measures set out in the Budget. There will be no increases in NIC rates in this Parliament.
For the avoidance of doubt, and as I set out in the Budget, we will go ahead with the abolition of class 2 national insurance contributions from April 2018. Class 2 is an outdated and regressive tax, and it remains right that it should go. I will set out in the autumn Budget further measures to fund, in full, today’s decision.
I undertook in the Budget speech to consult over the summer on options to address the principal outstanding area of difference in benefit entitlement between the employed and the self-employed: parental benefits. We will go ahead with that review, but we now intend to widen the exercise to look at the other areas of difference in treatment, alongside the Government’s consideration of the forthcoming report by Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the RSA, on the implications for employment rights of different ways of working in a rapidly changing economy. Once we have completed these pieces of work, the Government will set out how we intend to take forward and fund reforms in this area.
Reducing the unfairness of the difference in the tax treatment of those who are employed and those who are self-employed remains the right thing to do, but this Government set great store in the faith and trust of the British people, especially as we embark on the process of negotiating our exit from the European Union. By making this change today, we are listening to colleagues and demonstrating our determination to fulfil both the letter and the spirit of our manifesto tax commitments. I commend this statement to the House.

John Martin McDonnell: This is chaos. It is shocking and humiliating that the Chancellor has been forced to come here to reverse a key Budget decision announced less than a week ago. If the Chancellor had spent less time writing stale jokes for his speech and the Prime Minister less time guffawing like a feeding seal on the Treasury Bench, we would not have been landed in this mess.
Let us be clear: this was a £2 billion tax hike for many low and middle earners, and a clearcut and cynical breaking of a manifesto promise. Sickeningly, at the same time that the Chancellor was cutting taxes for the rich and corporations, large numbers of self-employed people have been put through the mangle over the past week, worried about how they would cope with this tax increase, yet today there is not a word of apology. Nobody should be too arrogant to use the word “sorry” when they blunder so disastrously.
Let me thank all those who helped to force this reversal. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party was the first to raise the matter in his response to the Budget. Labour MPs, many other Members across the House, the Federation of Small Businesses and several trade unions forced the Chancellor to see sense, but this blunder has consequences that he now has to address. The £2 billion that would have been raised was to go some way to tackling the social care crisis. We need to know where these desperately needed funds will come from now. We need guarantees from the Chancellor that no working people will be hit, either now or in the autumn statement, with stealth or other tax rises, and that there will be no further cuts to public services to pay for this blunder.
The Prime Minister and the Cabinet would have been briefed on the contents of the Budget in advance. Did the Prime Minister or any Cabinet Member raise their concerns with the Chancellor before he announced the measure? The Chancellor has announced a review. We need him to set a clear deadline for that review, and to give a commitment that its findings will be reported and debated on the Floor of this Chamber. We need him to address the real issues facing the self-employed: the scourge of bogus self-employment; the exploitation that goes on under that guise; the pressure from large corporations to reduce costs relating to the self-employed unrealistically; the problem of late payments; the lack of access to maternity pay; no paternity pay; no adoption pay; no sick pay; no compassionate leave; and no carer’s leave. That is the real agenda that should have been addressed last week, not tax hikes.
We welcome this reversal, but we now need an honest and forthright commitment that the self-employed agenda will be addressed. These people are the engine of our economy. They deserve to be respected, not attacked in the way they were seven days ago.

Philip Hammond: To echo what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Question Time, I am rather reluctant to take lessons from the right hon. Gentleman on anything except, perhaps, chaos theory; he certainly knows something about that. He talks about being forced to make a decision. We have listened to our colleagues and the voices of public opinion. In my view, that is how Parliament should work. We listen to what our colleagues say and make our decisions based on that. As I said to the House a few moments ago, we remain clear that the issue needs to be addressed. We have recognised that there is a legitimate view that the commitments that were made need to be interpreted widely; we have said that we will interpret them in that way and not go ahead with any national insurance contributions increases in this Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the leader of the Labour party, who, apart from in his performance today at Prime Minister’s questions, has scarcely mentioned class 4 national insurance contributions; he scarcely did so in his response to the Budget. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is even aware of this, but the Labour party actually has a self-employment commission, which it established last November. At the time it was established, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, acknowledged the need to address the discrepancies in access to entitlements and the contributions that pay for them. Despite the understandable tone of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, I hope that he agrees that, on the substantive underlying issues, there is a significant degree of agreement across the House that there is a discrepancy and a threat to the tax base that will have to be addressed over time.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about additional benefits for the self-employed. Of course we will review the issues around parental benefits, as I said in the Budget—we will actually take the review wider than that—but I hope that he agrees that if additional benefits are to be made available, we will have to look at how to pay for them, and it will not be done by borrowing half a trillion pounds that the country cannot afford and our children will be left paying for.

Andrew Tyrie: This announcement bolsters trust in the Government’s other commitments, and removes the perception of a cigarette paper between No. 10 and No. 11, so it is doubly welcome. Does the Chancellor agree that a differential should, none the less, remain in the long run to reflect the additional risk taken by the self-employed when they are doing their job?

Philip Hammond: In the Budget speech last week, I made very clear that we were seeking to close the gap a little. We were not seeking to equalise the contributions treatment of the employed and self-employed, as there are very good reasons why there may well need to be a gap. That is why we will look at this in the round—contributions, entitlements and the way the whole package works for the self-employed. Let us come back to this once we have completed the review, have the Matthew Taylor work and can look at the problem in the round.

Stewart Hosie: I said last week that this decision would come back to haunt the Chancellor, and it has, but little did I expect that when it did, No. 10 and No. 11 would be briefing against each other. It is almost as if the halcyon days of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair never really went away. However, I welcome the U-turn today, not least because about 140,000 Scottish self-employed people would have been affected by it, and many of them would have earned slightly below, on or only slightly more than the average wage. I am delighted that the Scottish National party went in to bat for the squeezed middle against this Chancellor.
Today’s U-turn has all the characteristics of the pasty tax, the caravan tax and the omnishambles Budget. The Chancellor said that he would fill the gap in the autumn, and I will listen carefully to what he says then, but will he give us an assurance today that he will not simply find another clever way of dipping into the pockets of modestly paid self-employed people? More importantly, if he changes the tax or national insurance regime for self-employed people in the future, will he have proper consultation in advance with their representatives, so that they are not hit with the uncertainty that they have faced over the past week?

Philip Hammond: On the last point, we will, of course, consult people widely over the course of the summer as we carry out the review. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is intrinsic in the Budget process that it is difficult to have any kind of proper consultation when preparing a Budget. He asked about measures in the autumn Budget. I said that all spending measures in the spring Budget would be fully funded by revenue raises or reductions in spending elsewhere in that Budget, so that it was broadly fiscally neutral. As a result of the decision I have announced today, the spring Budget is no longer broadly fiscally neutral, but I am committed to addressing that issue in the autumn. The intention remains to balance the measures that we are delivering between spending and taxation.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I thank the Chancellor for listening to the voices of colleagues and deciding to reverse the proposals. The genuinely self-employed carry real financial risk by working for themselves. I know that a Conservative Government really want a tax system that will support  risk-takers and growth-creators, so will the Chancellor commit to working over the coming months with colleagues who believe it is time to take a holistic and simplifying view on personal taxation for the self-employed that will support wholeheartedly those who build new businesses and take a risk?

Philip Hammond: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that this Government will always be on the side of those who genuinely strive to take risks, to innovate, to grow businesses and to contribute in that way to the economy. However, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), in his response to the statement, addressed the issue of bogus self-employment, and he is right: there is a problem of bogus self-employment. There is a problem of employers who are refusing to employ people, requiring them to be “self-employed”. There is a problem of individuals being advised by high street accountants that they can save tax by restructuring the way they work. We do believe that people should have choices, and we do believe that there should be a diversity of ways of working in the economy—we just do not believe that that should be driven by unfair tax advantages.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I remind the House that colleagues who arrived in the Chamber after the start of the statement should not stand or expect to be called. That is a very long-standing convention of the House.

Chris Leslie: This is obviously an acutely embarrassing episode for the Chancellor, but will he not acknowledge that it is also quite embarrassing for those of his colleagues, including the Prime Minister, whom he sent out there to defend this breaking of the manifesto commitment? Has he already apologised to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues, or will he take this opportunity to say sorry to them from the Dispatch Box?

Philip Hammond: I find it a bit extraordinary that that should be the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He, after all, is the one who said that Labour would fund its £500 billion plans by doubling income tax, doubling national insurance, doubling council tax and doubling VAT. He is the one who sounded the alarm on the Opposition side.
Look, I have had extensive conversations with colleagues since the Budget, over the weekend, and in the Lobby last night and on Monday. I have had lots of discussions with the Prime Minister over the last few days, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. As he would also expect, I am not about to give the House the full detail of those private conversations.

Nicky Morgan: I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement today and for recognising what colleagues and others have been saying to him. I also commend him for recognising that the employment market in this country is changing: there are more people who are self-employed, and that needs to be addressed. Does he not think it is right that it is the Conservative party that is asking those questions about how we balance our books, rather than the Labour party, which has no clue whatever about how to pay off the deficit or pay off our debt?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We have, absolutely, recognised the view of colleagues on the crucial issue of the manifesto commitment. However, on the substantive issue of the differences in treatment of people who are employed and people who are self-employed, there is a fundamental structural challenge that will have to be addressed, and that includes the question of how we extend appropriate benefits to people who are in self-employment, so that they get the full range of entitlements, as well as contributing in an appropriate way. We are clear that the right thing to do now is to rule out any increases in national insurance contributions during this Parliament, but that does not mean that we should not do the work, carry out this review and present our findings in due course, and we will do so.

Angela Eagle: Of 28 measures in this Budget, the Chancellor has had to come in a humiliating fashion to the House today to cast away the one that actually raised money. He has just told us that £14 billion of tax revenue is at risk because of the way national insurance is encouraging people to become, apparently, self-employed, and encouraging other abuses. He has told us he is not going to deal with that in this Parliament, so what is he going to do to safeguard the tax base in the meantime, while he does his review and belatedly puts into effect the manifesto commitment on which he fought the last election?

Philip Hammond: I have to say that that was an extraordinary contribution, because the hon. Lady cannot have it both ways or, to put it another way, have her cake and eat it. She wants me to adopt a broad interpretation of manifesto commitments and to adhere to it, and she wants me to protect the revenue base by addressing the difference in contribution treatment between the employed and the self-employed. I say to her, as I have just said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), that we will have to address that difference in due course. However, given the interpretation that is clearly out there of the manifesto commitment that was made, our priority now is to show that we will deliver on the spirit as well as the letter of that commitment, and we will not increase national insurance contributions in this Parliament.

Oliver Letwin: I am sure my right hon. Friend is right to deal with this issue in the round, but I hope he will not allow that in any way to deflect him from the very sensible Budget judgment he made in respect of fiscal neutrality or from the need for the structural reforms he is putting forward. Did he notice, as I did, that the shadow Chancellor asked him to fill the gap without reducing spending or increasing taxes? Does he know how that could be fulfilled?

Philip Hammond: The straight answer to my right hon. Friend is that only in the la la land that the Labour party occupies is that trick is possible. Of course, my right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issue, and I emphasise again my commitment in this Budget to fiscal neutrality—the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), of course, does not believe in fiscal neutrality.

John Martin McDonnell: Oh, dear me. You just, in a week, reversed a decision—

Philip Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman says, “Dear me”. I repeat: he does not—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. We cannot have these shouting matches across the Chamber. [Interruption.] It is not for me to tell anybody to do anything. I am asking people not to do things that they should not do: shouting across the Box. I now exhort the Chancellor to continue with his response.

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The right hon. Gentleman does not believe in fiscal neutrality—that is a fact. He believes in borrowing £500 billion of additional money, and saddling our children and our grandchildren with that debt. However, I very much take my right hon. Friend’s advice on maintaining fiscal neutrality and dealing with the structural issue that underlies this statement.

Frank Field: To make up the loss in revenue, might the Chancellor consider bearing down on those employers who force their employees into self-employment against their wishes, destabilise their lives and thereby get out of paying national insurance contributions, which all good employers do pay?

Philip Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman is right. As I have said, there is, as the economy changes shape, an increasing tendency for employers, effectively, to drive people out of employment and into what is thinly disguised employment, badged as self-employment. That is one of the issues that Matthew Taylor is looking at in his review. I have had the opportunity to have a preliminary meeting with him. We are very much looking forward to receiving his report in due course, and we will respond to it.

Jake Berry: I declare my interest as a self-employed solicitor. I commend the Chancellor on coming to the House today and putting forward his views about changes in self-employment. Will he join me in commending the literally thousands of people across Rossendale and Darwen who go out, start businesses, make money and are self-employed? When they voted in the last general election, they knew that a Conservative Government would not only protect their tax rates, but create the economic environment in which they could start and grow their business.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is about the environment being conducive to people starting and running small businesses. I congratulate those in Rossendale who do that—who get up every morning and who are prepared to take those risks. They will now benefit from the abolition of class 2 national insurance contributions, making them that little bit better off.

Rachel Reeves: Will the Chancellor confirm when the decision to make this U-turn was made? Is not the truth that this was the Prime Minister’s decision, not his?

Philip Hammond: Clearly, that is the story the hon. Lady would like to believe, but, unfortunately, it is not true. As Members would expect, I have been discussing  the Budget and these issues with the Prime Minister since last Wednesday, just as I have discussed them with many colleagues over the weekend, and we have had several meetings over the last few days. The final decision to make this announcement to the House was made this morning—just after 8 o’clock—and I have come here at the earliest reasonable opportunity to inform the House.

Anne Main: There are 7,000 self-employed individuals in St Albans, representing 16% of the economically active. I thank the Chancellor for listening to the representations that I made in my letter to him. Those people will welcome the three-year end-of-Parliament commitment that he has made on this matter, which gives certainty. He is absolutely right to look at this issue. He is a very honourable man in coming here and honouring our manifesto today, and he should ignore the criticisms from the Opposition.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have to say that I generally find it much more fruitful listening to the advice and thoughts of my hon. Friends than listening to the comments from the Opposition.

Alex Salmond: We all noted that the Chancellor brought along the First Lord of the Treasury today for support, solidarity, counselling and hand-holding as he made his abject statement. Who first realised that the Government were in flagrant breach of their manifesto commitment—was it the Chancellor or the Prime Minister? If manifestos are now paramount and all parties must seek to implement them, will the Chancellor confirm, since he intends to go ahead with these changes, that they will appear in the Conservative manifesto at the next election so that the self-employed can vote accordingly?

Philip Hammond: I have made a statement today about the Government’s intentions: no national insurance contribution rate increases for the remainder of this Parliament. I am not making a statement about the Conservative party’s manifesto for the next general election; the right hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself for a while on that particular issue. On the question of who first raised the issue of the manifesto, I think, to give credit where credit is due, that it was Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC shortly after my comments in the Budget speech.

Matthew Offord: I commend the Chancellor for coming to the House today. He is entirely correct to assert that the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Act 2015 applied only to class 1 contributions. I do not recall Labour’s Treasury Front Benchers at the time ever mentioning any other contributions. Once again, I thank him for coming here, because he is a listening Chancellor who will continue to listen to those on the Conservative Benches—the sensible side of the House—unlike some previous Labour Chancellors who not only did not listen to anyone but brought the economy to its knees.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. I did not mention this because it is not something that I particularly want to make a big issue of, but it is true that when the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill was debated in this House, Ministers made it clear that they were legislating to lock class 1 only. No amendments  were tabled and no issue was raised. Indeed, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who was then a shadow Treasury Minister, said at the Dispatch Box that this Bill discharged the Conservative party’s commitment on national insurance contributions in the manifesto. [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Lady might want to check Hansard.

Helen Goodman: I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will want an endorsement from me like a hole in the head, but I am rather disappointed because there is a lot wrong with national insurance. In the wider review, will he also look at the absurd way in which it kicks in at £8,000, well below the personal tax allowance, and at the very unfair top 2% rate?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. It is important to separate the two issues involved: the substantive underlying issue about the way in which national insurance contributions and entitlement to contributory benefit work, and the equally important but separate issue of the way in which manifesto commitments work. The review that we will conduct will look specifically at the differences between the self-employed and the employed, and the access of the self-employed to contributory benefits, so her suggestion is beyond the scope of that particular piece of work. However, as she especially will be aware, all these things are routinely reviewed by the Treasury in the run-up to fiscal events.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his wisdom in being open to changing his mind, which shows the serious-mindedness of Her Majesty’s Government; and for his propriety in telling this House first and doing it himself, not sending someone else on his behalf? May I also commend him for his singular achievement of converting a number of desiccated socialists to support for lower taxation?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but what I see on the Opposition Benches these days is very often not so much desiccated socialists as dedicated opportunists.

Greg Mulholland: This Budget was disappointing and unambitious, and is now mired in this chaos. Is it not now time to properly consider having an NHS tax specific to funding our NHS, which did not receive enough funding? As the Chancellor knows, this has the support of the majority of the British public.

Philip Hammond: What we need to fund our NHS is a strong economy and a Government who have the political will to make the commitment that we have made to a £10 billion post-inflation increase in NHS spending. It is very nice to have a contribution from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I do not know whether that is a precursor of the Liberal Democrat manifesto for the next general election—we shall wait to see.

Anna Soubry: I commend the Chancellor for his statement. As somebody who was self-employed for many years, I know that the current  system undoubtedly needs reform, in terms of contributions and benefits, so I look forward to Matthew Taylor’s report. Given that so many of the self-employed are sole traders and micro business owners, may I urge the Chancellor to look at the great work that Angela Knight has done on how the whole system could be improved? I am very happy to have a meeting with one of his junior Ministers, if he cannot have any such meeting himself, to discuss that further.

Philip Hammond: Angela Knight is the chairman of the Office of Tax Simplification, and we will of course seek its advice in this matter. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

Yvette Cooper: May I just confirm the slightly astonishing thing that the Chancellor said a few moments ago—that the first person to raise the Tory manifesto with him was the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg? Is it actually the case that nobody in No. 10 and nobody in No. 11 checked the Conservative manifesto before he wrote the Budget?

Philip Hammond: I did say that, but let me be clear: I think that Laura Kuenssberg was the first person after  I spoke to raise the issue outside. The Government have always been clear, as I said on Wednesday evening and on Thursday, many times, and the Prime Minister said on Thursday evening, that we have always regarded the legislated tax locks as being the commitment we were working to. Our whole approach in the Treasury—all the work we do—is based around the tax locks that are in place. I accept, however, that there is a gap between the specific tax locks that were legislated and the wording that was used in the manifesto. We have today accepted that the more expansive interpretation should be the one that prevails, and that is why I have made the statement that I have.

Neil Carmichael: I certainly welcome this statement because it underlines very strongly the case for fairness and also salutes the important work that self-employed people do. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that if we enter a period of turbulence for whatever reason, it is fundamentally necessary to have a strong fiscal basis, and that is what he is achieving through acting in this way?

Philip Hammond: As I said in the Budget speech and previously in the autumn statement, we are seeking to do three things: to keep Britain on track for balancing the budget as early as possible in the next Parliament through fiscal discipline; to invest in Britain’s future to raise our productivity and ensure a decent standard of living for everybody across this country, on which we made further steps in this Budget by investing in skills; and to ensure that we have enough fiscal headroom in our fiscal position to allow for any events that arise over the coming years. We need the ability to manoeuvre as we go through what will be a period of unusual uncertainty in the planning of our economy.

Wes Streeting: More than 10,000 people in Ilford North will welcome the Chancellor’s damascene conversion to the novel idea that parties  might keep the promises in their manifesto. What does it say about the competence of this Government, on  a day when they reveal that there are no costings for a hard Brexit, that this year, on his watch, we will have two Budgets, two policies on national insurance in a week, and a £2 billion black hole in his Budget? Whatever happened to the long-term economic plan?

Philip Hammond: I have set out our long-term plan. The hon. Gentleman knows the fiscal figures, because they were published last week. As I have said, I do not resile at all from the commitment that I have made that we will, overall, be broadly fiscally neutral. I will introduce additional measures—[Interruption.] Well, it would not be appropriate for me to do so today, but I will bring forward additional measures in the autumn Budget to address the cost of the changes that I have announced today. By the way, if I could just give him a piece of advice, before he goes in too hard on keeping manifesto promises, he might just want to check his own party’s record in government on that particular score.

Steve Double: On behalf of the 9,000 self-employed people in St Austell and Newquay, may I thank the Chancellor for his statement today and for being willing to listen to the sensible voices of Conservative Members and the business community in making this change? Will he confirm that there is absolutely nothing wrong in someone legitimately choosing to be self-employed and in charge of their own work destiny, and that this party will always be on the side of the entrepreneurs, who are the heart of our economy?

Philip Hammond: Yes. I can say to the self-employed of St Austell and, indeed, more widely across the UK that this Government will always support enterprise and those who start and grow businesses. As I said in the Budget speech, we believe that people should have choices about the way they work. There are very many good reasons for choosing self-employment, and there are many good reasons for choosing to incorporate. It is incumbent on us to make sure that unfair tax benefits are not one of the things that drive people to make such decisions.

Sammy Wilson: The 130,000 self-employed people in Northern Ireland, who make up a seventh of the workforce, will welcome this change of heart by the Government. Does the Chancellor recognise, however, that the imposition of quarterly tax returns, which has been delayed for one year, and the closing of the flat-rate VAT system will also have an impact on self-employed people? Instead of targeting those who are genuinely self-employed and who have contributed to today’s low unemployment figures, should he not concentrate his efforts on the large corporations, such as the BBC, that abuse the tax system and have self-employment contracts to avoid paying tax?

Philip Hammond: As the hon. Gentleman will know, this Government have introduced a raft of measures over the years to target the avoidance of tax by large corporations, and we have raised a very substantial amount of additional tax—well over £100 billion—through those measures. The VAT flat rate scheme, which he mentioned, was introduced to assist the smallest businesses,  but it had been turned into a systematic route for abuse, and I am afraid that we had to deal with it to make sure that the tax base was not eroded. However, we will always seek to support the genuinely self-employed hard-working people who are the backbone of this country’s economy.

Michelle Donelan: On behalf of all the hard-working self-employed people in Wiltshire, I thank the Chancellor for his announcement today and welcome it. The introduction of a new state pension marks a significant increase in retirement provision for the self-employed, but without any auto-enrolment scheme, they still do not have parity on pensions. Will the Chancellor please remember that and look at it?

Philip Hammond: Yes. As we have now cast more widely our review of the differences in how employees and the self-employed are treated, it is right that we should look at that particular aspect as well, and we will do so.

John Woodcock: Can we just be clear: is the Chancellor saying that he was not aware that he was breaking his own manifesto promise until the BBC pointed it out, or that he was aware of it but was just hoping no one noticed?

Philip Hammond: Neither. We understand the commitment that we made to have been discharged by the passage through the House of the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Act 2015, which set out very clearly the scope that the then Chancellor decided to apply to the national insurance contributions lock. That is how  the Treasury has worked since 2015, with the locks and ring-fences that were put in place. They are part of the everyday workings of the Treasury, and that was what we worked to in this case. However, I have accepted today that there is a broader interpretation—based on the manifesto itself, not the legislation that implemented it—and that is why I have come to the House and made this statement.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on listening to the self-employed and to representations from Conservative Members in particular. Will he confirm that the announcements he has made today about the abolition of class 2 national insurance contributions and their transfer to class 4 contributions mean, in effect, that every single self-employed person in this country will experience a tax cut over the next two years?

Philip Hammond: Yes. It will not be over the next two years, but in one go, with a tax cut of about £130 a year in April 2018. That is because class 2 is a regressive tax—it is a flat-rate reduction for everybody who is self-employed, regardless of the level of their income.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: This is of course a welcome U-turn, but if it is right to rethink this decision, is it not also right to look at the decisions that were overlooked last week? The Chancellor spoke in his statement about unfairness in treatment. May I remind him of the thousands of WASPI— Women Against State Pension Inequality—women who protested outside the Chamber last week, and ask him when his Government will redeem in full their contractual obligations to them?

Philip Hammond: We have already addressed the concerns of women affected by the change in pension age. Of course I am aware of the residual concerns being expressed by that group of people, and we hear those concerns, but we have addressed the principal issue.

Peter Bone: I very much welcome the Chancellor’s statement. In Wellingborough, we had a parliamentary meeting on Saturday morning, when the view on the general principle in the manifesto was mentioned. Will he look to the future, however? He may be able to narrow the difference between the employed and the self-employed by reducing the contribution that the employed make, so will he do that from the Brexit dividend?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to bring us back to his agenda. I have had suggestions from various parties that the gap between the contributions of the employed and the self-employed could be narrowed by the device of lowering the contributions of the employed. However, 85% of the working population are employed, and any reduction in the contribution of the employed would be a huge fiscal cost and would—in our world—have to be paid for, although the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington may have a different view.

Chris Matheson: The clear impression given by today’s announcement is of a reactive Government who are not in control of their own agenda. Following on from the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), may I specifically ask the Chancellor whether he knew that his policy contradicted the 2015 Conservative manifesto? If he is such a good listening Chancellor, why did he not listen to representations before he made his statement and not go ahead with his announcement last week?

Philip Hammond: Because those representations were not made before the statement. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, there was quite a lot of speculation in the media in the week before the Budget about a possible increase in class 4 national insurance contributions, but I did not see any reference to the manifesto in any of those media discussions. We believe that the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Act put into law the lock that we put in place, and I did not hear anybody suggest anything to the contrary during the press speculation in the week before the Budget.

Amanda Solloway: I want to add my congratulations to the Chancellor on his announcement. Self-employment is key to our economy and to the people of Derby. We have many great examples of successful and thriving businesses, thanks to the ongoing polices of this Government. Will my right hon. Friend assure me, however, that he will look at all the ways in which he can encourage the continued growth of those essential businesses?

Philip Hammond: Yes. It is precisely growing small businesses that we must seek to encourage. The subset of the self-employed who employ people—it is actually quite a small subset—are very much to be encouraged, because that is a way of promoting growth and creating job opportunities in our communities.

Owen Smith: May I commend the Chancellor for the bravery of his statement? I ask him to pass on our sincere thanks to Laura Kuenssberg for pointing out to him that it was a duff decision and to the Prime Minister for forcing him to reverse it before breakfast.

Philip Hammond: I have explained to the House what happened and what the view is inside Government about the tax locks that we put in place. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion and he has expressed it.

Nigel Mills: I thank the Chancellor for his change of mind today. I urge him to carry on with some parts of the proposal, namely considering how we can ensure that the very highest earners, who tend to be self-employed, pay the right amount of tax, including partners in limited liability partnerships, who have the advantages of limited liability and of not paying national insurance.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. It is a relatively small group, but about 90,000 self-employed people, many of them on very high earnings, benefit enormously from the way the system operates, particularly those who use limited liability partnerships. That is an essential part of the review of this issue in the round that we have to do.

Andrew Slaughter: Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I can readily understand why the Chancellor resisted reading the Tory manifesto until Laura Kuenssberg drew his attention to it last week, but I cannot understand his position now. Is it, “I was absolutely right to raise national insurance contributions for the self-employed, and that’s why I’m not going to do it”?

Philip Hammond: I think I have made my position quite clear. I have distinguished between the two issues. On the substance of the issue, it is absolutely right to address the discrepancy, which is no longer justified by the difference in access to benefits. However, it is also right that we accept the wider interpretation of the manifesto commitment that my hon. Friends have expressed to me. That is why we have said that we will continue to review the issue in the round and will come back to Parliament with our decisions arising from the review, but we will not increase national insurance contributions in this Parliament.

Robert Jenrick: My constituents, almost a quarter of whom are self-employed, will welcome the decision today, but they also find it extraordinary when they read in the papers that the chief executive of their local hospital trust is paid £400,000 a year through a personal service company—a practice, incidentally, that got completely out of control under the last Labour Government. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor continue to tackle those issues, particularly in the public sector?

Philip Hammond: I empathise enormously with the self-employed of my hon. Friend’s constituency. He will know that I once lived among them. I sympathise with the point he has raised about public sector employees using personal service companies, but he will know that  we have legislated so that, from next April, public sector engagers of people who use personal service companies will be responsible for deducting the tax and national insurance contributions that those people would be paying if they were employed directly as employees.

Chris Evans: Will the Chancellor give small businesspeople an assurance that the three years he talks about is not simply a stay of execution and that we will not see another Tory tax hike in three years’ time?

Philip Hammond: I have made it clear that there will be no increase in national insurance contributions during the remainder of this Parliament. As I have said, I am not setting out today the Conservative manifesto for the next general election. I am making a commitment for this Parliament, and I hope the House will be satisfied with that.

Robert Courts: I declare an interest as someone who was self-employed until a few months ago. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you. As a member of the Federation of Small Businesses and the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for small and micro businesses, I welcome today’s announcement from the Chancellor and thank him for it, as will the nearly one fifth of my constituents in Witney and west Oxfordshire who are self-employed. Will the Chancellor give a little more detail on the scope of the review he will undertake over the summer?

Philip Hammond: Yes. First we will respond to Matthew Taylor’s report, which looks more widely at employment rights in a rapidly changing economy. We will look at parental benefits, which are the principal area where there is still a discrepancy in what is available for the self-employed and the employed. There are other relatively minor areas, but we will look at all of them and seek to, as it were, audit the differences in treatment between the employed and self-employed. The House and people outside will then be able to see in the round the difference in access to benefits and entitlements and the difference in contributions, and form a judgment about how we should move forward.

David Hanson: Just so that I do not have to wait 30 years to read the minutes of the Cabinet meeting, will the Chancellor confirm that the decision last week was the unanimous decision of the Cabinet? As he is seeking savings to fill the £2 billion hole, will he start with the £320 million towards free schools that he announced last week?

Philip Hammond: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but he will have to wait 30 years. I am not about to tell him what happened in the Cabinet, but he will know that all decisions are the unanimous decisions of the Cabinet.

Richard Drax: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wise and dignified statement today, and thank him for it. Conservative Members understand that we have to live within our means. Is it not time to look at the overseas aid budget and the figure of 0.7% of GDP? I suggest that if we need some money, that is an area we should look at.

Philip Hammond: There again, we have a manifesto commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. That commitment has been legislated for and is therefore locked, unless this House were to decide otherwise.

Roger Mullin: This is another right boorach. The last Chancellor who had to make a U-turn lasted only a few weeks thereafter, so before this Chancellor leaves office, will he confirm that, since he said that this decision was only made at  8 o’clock in the morning, that means it has not been taken to the full Cabinet?

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I shall add the word “boorach” to my vocabulary.

Philip Hammond: Yes, the decision was made by myself and the Prime Minister this morning.

Michael Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for reacting so quickly to the representations made to him by colleagues and, indeed, by Laura Kuenssberg. But I ask him in all seriousness to listen on occasion to the Labour party, because there are lessons to be learned. Labour would have leaked this statement out at a weekend, not immediately prior to Prime Minister’s questions. It would not have come to the House and made an oral statement; there would have been a written statement. I say to my right hon. Friend that he is really far too open.

Philip Hammond: As you would expect, Mr Speaker, we try, if it is at all possible, to ensure that the House is always informed first of these matters. After my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met this morning, I wrote to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee and placed a copy of that letter in the Library of the House, and I have made this statement at the earliest opportunity available to me.

Danny Kinahan: We have already heard that Northern Ireland has some 134,000 self-employed people. We also know that it is critical that we increase the private sector in Northern Ireland. At the same time, we have 50% fewer new businesses. Will  the Chancellor ensure that the future consultation on this matter considers all the aspects of its effects on the Northern Ireland economy?

Philip Hammond: Yes; as the hon. Gentleman alluded to, there are specific issues in Northern Ireland, where the public sector still occupies a dominant role in the economy. Of course, we all share the objective of increasing the share of the private sector in the Northern Ireland economy. Small businesses can play an important role in that. The lessons of this review will be generally applicable across the United Kingdom, but they will certainly play an important role in Northern Ireland.

Ben Howlett: Although it might not be palatable to Opposition Members, as somebody who was self-employed for many years before entering this place, I think the Chancellor was absolutely right last week to make his announcement and rebalance the tax base, as more self-employed people enter the jobs market. He was also right to listen to the comments of Government Members. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend does not want to make comments about the next manifesto,   but does he agree that we should look at proposals to effectively scrap this very outdated tax and merge it into a single tax, which would be an awful lot more progressive?

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend will probably know, ideas about merging the tax and national insurance systems have been around for longer than I have. Although it is a superficially attractive proposition, it is fraught with practical difficulties. The Office of Tax Simplification looked at it recently, and I am sure my hon. Friend will have read its report. I say to the House that all matters relating to tax are kept continually under review at every fiscal event.

Mike Gapes: Last week, the Chancellor made what at the time was a very funny joke about a Chancellor of the Exchequer sacked just a few weeks after a Budget. Does he, in retrospect, agree with Lord Lamont that this was a rookie mistake?

Philip Hammond: I set out the basis on which we made the difficult decision to proceed with changes to class 4 national insurance, packaged with the abolition of class 2 national insurance, to try to make the system a little bit fairer. We listened to our hon. Friends and decided to withdraw the proposals, conduct a wide-ranging review and set out to Parliament later in the year how we intend to proceed.

Andrew Murrison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and warmly thank him for listening to colleagues and their constituents. Notwithstanding his comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett), may I invite him to look afresh at the possibility of hypothecating national insurance contributions, so that contributors to NICs, employers and the public can see a clearer link between their contributions and the services they receive?

Philip Hammond: There is a soft hypothecation around national insurance contributions: 20% of the fund goes to the national health service. They fund the state pension to which self-employed people now have full access for the first time—an extraordinary enhancement in the entitlement. I am told that, for a 45-year-old man, the enhanced pension in retirement, £1,800 or more a year, would cost about £50,000 as a capital sum to purchase an annuity in the marketplace. That is an extraordinary expansion of the entitlement offered to the self-employed.

Paula Sherriff: Well, well. They do say a week is a long time in politics and I am sure the Chancellor would agree with me on this occasion. Now, £2 billion would account for over 10,000 police officers, 10,000 teachers, 12,000 nurses and 5,000 doctors. Will the Chancellor guarantee that none of those posts will be cut as a result of his Government’s gross incompetence?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Lady might also have remarked that £2 billion was the amount we put into social care funding in the Budget last week, alongside additional capital for the NHS, investment in schools and investment in skills. [Interruption.] Not enough, she says. I understand why she says that, because the shadow Chancellor tells her, “You can borrow for everything you want to do. Don’t worry, the kids will pick up the tab.”

John Martin McDonnell: Read your own manifesto.

Philip Hammond: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not hearing anything worth listening to.

David Morris: I was self-employed for 27 years before I came into this House, and I have campaigned long and hard for the abolition of class 2. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that this is a tax cut, which it is. Will the Chancellor allude to what the self-employed will be getting? As a self-employment ambassador to the former Prime Minister, I know the self-employment sector is very keen to find out exactly what it will get for this extra annuity.

Philip Hammond: The self-employed benefit from increased personal allowances, taking 3 million people out of tax altogether and a tax cut for 29 million people. From April this year, the self-employed, like the employed, will have access to tax-free childcare and the additional childcare offer for three and four-year-olds. That is a new extension of the entitlement to the self-employed. As I mentioned, the extension last year of the state pension to the self-employed on the same basis as employees really was a dramatic step-change in the way the system operates. It is worth noting that with all these enhanced entitlements there has been no change at all to the contribution asked of self-employed people.

Margaret Ferrier: The Evening Standard delivered a damning verdict on its front page today, “Hammond U-turn on Budget Fiasco: Chancellor’s job on line as he climbs down over tax rise for entrepreneurs.” It is looking like the last spring Budget may also be the Chancellor’s last Budget. In fact, we have heard he has just endorsed Laura Kuenssberg from the BBC. How does he intend to build trust in his competence following this utterly shambolic episode?

Philip Hammond: I explained how we approached this issue. We have a bigger job to do here. The country is embarking on a great venture that will shape the future of this country for many years to come. National insurance class 4 contributions are important, but I suggest they are not the only challenge facing the country today. It is important that we focus on the other issues that are vital to get right.

Andrew Bingham: I applaud my right hon. Friend on three counts: his ability to understand, listen and act. He understands that the changes can be seen as a break with a manifesto commitment, he listened to colleagues on the Conservative Benches, and he acted swiftly and with certainty to give self-employed people the clarity that people in business want. In the review, will he ensure that we never lose sight of the fact that the self-employed are the risk takers and the entrepreneurs who power our economy, at great risk and uncertainty to themselves?

Philip Hammond: As I have said many times today and am very happy to say again, we will always support those who are taking risks to grow and found new businesses. Our job—I take this very seriously and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister takes it very seriously—is to do what is right for the country. When it  becomes apparent that we have to do something because it is the right thing for the country—that is what has become apparent to us over the past couple of days—we will do it, however difficult it is. That is what I have done today.

Geraint Davies: I realise that the Budget has now become a consultation exercise. Will the Chancellor confirm that at the time he and his colleagues put together the manifesto commitment not to put up national insurance, VAT or income tax, there had been no economic impact assessment of Brexit; and that the economic cost of Brexit, from hard Brexit and tariffs, will fall wholly on public services and the poor?

Philip Hammond: It is certainly the case that at the time of the last general election the referendum had not taken place. Indeed, if a Conservative Government had not been elected a referendum would not have taken place. The hon. Gentleman knows and understands that very well. I have explained today how we approached the manifesto commitments, how we delivered them into law and how we have reviewed the way they are seen in the light of representations from colleagues.

Huw Merriman: There has been much talk about the manifesto. This is the manifesto that promised to protect the elderly. In delivering an extra £2 billion for social care, does the Chancellor agree that those of us on the Government Benches need to support him when he makes difficult decisions to raise the cash? The alternative is putting future generations into horrendous debt.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is exactly right. As I have already said several times today, we will not adopt the convenient ruse the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has of pretending that we can borrow for everything without any cost. If something needs doing, such as funding our social care system, we have to be prepared to pay for it. Simply pretending that we can borrow for it and pass the debts to our children is not a credible fiscal position.

Alan Brown: This farce has come about partly because of the lack of transparency in the estimates and Budget process. The Government should look at it again. Given that the Chancellor admits his spring Budget is no longer fiscally neutral, I have a few suggestions for what he can look at again: the higher rate threshold, nearly £3 billion; lifetime ISA up to £20,000, £3 billion; corporation tax giveaway, £23.5 billion; and inheritance tax giveaway, nearly £3 billion. That is £32 billion worth of giveaways over the next few years in this Budget. Why does he not look at those measures again when he talks about balancing the books?

Philip Hammond: We know that the Scottish National party believes in higher taxes, because everyone earning more than £45,000 will be paying £314 a year more tax in Scotland next year than in England.

Charlie Elphicke: I commend the Chancellor for his statement and urge him to take firm action on fake self-employment, which is tax dodging by big businesses that are shirking their responsibilities  and should know better. Will he also consider the case for a wide-ranging reform for a new deal for the self-employed, not just on the tax side of the ledger, but in respect of workplace support, so that we could have fairness and a level playing field between different types of worker?

Philip Hammond: That is the purpose of the report that Matthew Taylor is writing to look at the differences in treatment as the economy changes shape. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are examples of employers egregiously forcing employees into bogus self-employment, but there are also much more complex cases—for example, where new digital platforms are allowing people to work in different ways. Are they employees; are they self-employed; are they something else in between? We need to ask those questions because, as the economy changes shape, this will become an increasingly important issue for us to address.

Mark Durkan: The Chancellor now accepts that the shape, pace and burden of the change that he announced were going to be problematic, and he makes the case for longer-managed and balanced change. He has told us that he needs to consider the issues in the round, looking at contributions and entitlements. Why cannot that same benchmark extend to the WASPI women, who find themselves victimised by the pace and shape of change? He describes their outstanding grievances merely as residual concerns. If Laura Kuenssberg does a report that points out that the WASPI women’s grievances are much more than residual concerns, will he reconsider?

Philip Hammond: As I have said, we have considered the issue of women affected by the pension age changes and we have provided some transitional funding. I am aware that there are people who believe that that is not sufficient and who would like more. I understand that, but the role of Government is always to balance the claims of individuals against the interests of the taxpayer, who has to fund these things in the end, and we think we have got that balance right.

Philip Hollobone: Away from the Chamber of the House of Commons, out there in the real world, there is an army of self-employed people who are working their socks off from dawn to dusk and often longer. They often take great personal risks. They are the heroes and heroines of wealth creation. Without their efforts, we simply would not be able to afford the public services that we all enjoy. On behalf of the self-employed people of Kettering, I commend my right hon. Friend’s statement and thank him for thinking again.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I extend my sincere good wishes to all the people of Kettering—self-employed or otherwise—and everywhere else.

Tracy Brabin: Although the freelance cultural industries and the self-employed of Batley and Spen are very grateful for this U-turn, it is the slashing of the dividend drawdown from £5,000 to £2,000 that makes a massive difference. Some people are living on this when they cannot get work for month after month. Will the Chancellor do a U-turn on that as well?

Philip Hammond: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but this is a measure that will affect only people who have a share portfolio worth typically more than £50,000. It is a measure that affects a relatively small number of people. If we want to fund things such as social care with additional cash injections, we have to raise the money from somewhere. I am sorry if that is a hard lesson. I know it is one that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will avoid at all costs, but fiscal discipline requires us to find a way of funding the high-value public spending that we need to do. I believe that the Budget measures we have announced are an appropriate way to raise the funding needed to support our social care, the national health service, skills and schools as our economy goes forward.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome the Chancellor’s statement and the fact that he is the first Chancellor to see the budget deficit fall below 3% in at least 10 years, building on the work of his predecessor. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who I believe must have had quite a busy week since the Budget, for all the work he has done on this. Does the Chancellor agree that, if we are to have the first-class services that we all need, we have to raise the revenue? The time for raising revenue to pay for these, rather than for cuts, is now.

Philip Hammond: Yes, although I remind my hon. Friend that we have embarked on an efficiency review, seeking to make a further £3.5 billion of efficiency savings in departmental expenditure, of which I have committed to reinvest £1 billion in our priorities. Getting the balance right between taxation, efficiency in public expenditure and borrowing where it is right to do so is important. I have borrowed for infrastructure investment and for productivity-enhancing infrastructure in the autumn statement. Where it is right to do so, we will borrow, but it is not right to borrow for everyday expenditure in the way that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington suggests.

James Cartlidge: Auto-enrolment has been a great success story for the employed, but there is a major practical barrier in selling it to the self-employed, who do not normally have one single payroll controller. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the rise of the gig economy, millions of workers are self-employed and, effectively, working for one big company? Is he also aware that, when I asked representatives of Hermes, Deliveroo, Amazon and Uber in the Select Committee whether they would be willing to consider such a scheme for their gig workers, they were very positive about the prospect of the Government bringing one in?

Philip Hammond: As I have said, we will include looking at auto-enrolment in the broader review that we are going to undertake of the differences in treatment between employees and the self-employed, which is clearly a significant area.

Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I make a germane point of order?

John Bercow: It is quite a proud and ambitious boast of the right hon. Gentleman that his point of order will be germane. The first thing to establish is that I will  exceptionally take points of order now if they flow directly from the matters with which we have just been dealing. Otherwise, they will have to wait.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I, too, have an extremely germane point of order.

John Bercow: Extremely germane? Well, there is a Dutch auction in relevance taking place here.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I am going to take the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who is speaking from the Front Bench, first, and I shall save the other Members for the delectation of the House.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: In response to questions, the Chancellor stated that I had confirmed, with reference to the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill, that this discharged the Tories’ national insurance manifesto pledge. For the benefit of the record, I stated that it was part of their wider pledge to cap income tax, VAT and national insurance contributions. On Second Reading, I stated that it was part of the Government’s policy to cap national insurance contributions for this Parliament and went on to state:
“If they are going to legislate for every pre-election promise, surely they should apply that to every manifesto pledge. They are certainly not doing that.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 19.]
Interestingly—

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot have a lengthy dilation. That is not appropriate. If the hon. Lady has something specifically for me, which she can encapsulate in a short sentence of no more than 20 words, I will treat of it.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I respectfully request that the Chancellor retracts the comments he made earlier on that very question. They are factually incorrect.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady has made her request. The Chancellor can respond, but he is not procedurally obliged to do so. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to respond briefly, he may.

Philip Hammond: Further to that point of order, Let me merely and briefly read the hon. Lady’s words as recorded in Hansard:
“As we have heard, this Bill enacts the Conservatives’ manifesto pledge not to increase NICs in this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 914.]

John Bercow: I cannot instruct Members on which sentence they should read, but I rather suspect that if Members wish to return to these matters, they may choose to do so.

Desmond Swayne: rose—

Alex Salmond: rose—

John Bercow: Two Members are standing, both of whom are distinguished products of the University of St Andrews. They seem to be in some fierce competition with each other as to the respective relevance of their points of order. I call Mr Salmond.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, A wise choice, Sir. My point of order, extremely germanely, is about collective responsibility for the Budget. Traditionally, it was held that a Budget was outwith collective responsibility, but more recently, the practice has been to take the Budget to Cabinet and then bring it to the House, thus ensuring collective responsibility. The Chancellor told us a few seconds ago that this mark 2 Budget could not, by definition, have been subject to that Cabinet responsibility, because he and the Prime Minister decided on it at breakfast this morning.
May I have a ruling, Mr Speaker, on two emergency measures? First, may I suggest that, to ensure that all Ministers are bound to support the Chancellor through collective responsibility, there should be an emergency Cabinet meeting to give the change to the Budget the sanction of that collective responsibility? Secondly, may I suggest that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC should be brought into the Cabinet so that its members can get it right the first time?

John Bercow: Far be it from me to have to say this to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he has raised a notably political point under the elegant cloak of constitutionalism. He does have some experience and dexterity in these matters, and I am therefore not altogether surprised at his ingenuity on this occasion. However, I do not think that it warrants a response from the Chair beyond that which I have offered. His point is on the record.

Peter Bone: But not germane. [Laughter.]

John Bercow: I do not wish to adjudicate upon how relevant it is—

Peter Bone: Division?

John Bercow: But it has been heard, and I do not wish further time to be taken up by a Division of the House. Now we must hear the point of order from Sir Desmond Swayne.

Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a slavish supporter of the Government, I am in some difficulty. My article for the Forest Journal, robustly supporting the Chancellor’s earlier policy, is already with the printer. [Laughter.] Having been persuaded of the correctness of the course that the Chancellor is now following, I merely needed an opportunity to recant. [Laughter.]

John Bercow: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that, by a wanton abuse of the point of order procedure, he has found his own salvation. We will leave it there for now.
I am glad that the House is in such a good mood, and I am sure that it has an insatiable appetite for the next statement. However, I have just been advised that this might be a convenient moment at which to announce   the result of deferred Divisions. We are building up a sense of anticipation for the Secretary of State for International Development.
I have now to announce the result of the day’s deferred Divisions. In respect of the question relating to social security, the Ayes were 292 and the Noes were 236, so the question was agreed to. In respect of the question relating to the Crown, the Ayes were 464 and the Noes were 56.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

COUNTER-DAESH UPDATE

Priti Patel: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall update the House on the ongoing campaign against Daesh in Iraq and Syria, including the UK’s role in this collective effort. I shall deal first with Mosul, the last major population centre held by Daesh in Iraq and a city key to the counter-Daesh campaign.
Retaking Mosul will be a body blow to Daesh and a major victory for the Iraqi Government, but this is not going to be an easy fight. It will be tough to retake the city, tougher to rebuild it after three years of Daesh rule, and tougher still to win back the trust of the population. Since the House was last updated in November, Iraqi forces have made significant progress against Daesh in Mosul, with substantial support from coalition aircraft including those of the Royal Air Force. East Mosul was retaken on 24 January.
We should pay tribute to the skills and tenacity demonstrated by the Iraqi security forces in clearing Daesh from east Mosul, and to their commitment to protecting civilians during that difficult fight. The liberated community of east Mosul have testified daily to the horror and the sheer brutality that they have experienced. The United Nations has received
“innumerable reports of…gross abuses of human rights”
perpetrated by Daesh, including the use of human shields and snipers to kill civilians, and the existence of mass graves—a reminder to us all of why bringing Daesh to justice is so vital. Thirty schools in east Mosul have already reopened, allowing 16,000 children to return to education. UK assistance through the UN is providing access to water, health and municipal services, and our funding for the UN Mine Action Service will assist in the removal of explosive devices.
On 19 February, Iraqi forces launched the next phase of the operation: the liberation of west Mosul. We should congratulate them on their steady progress so far, including the recent capture of the regional government offices and the courthouse. We will continue to encourage the Government of Iraq to ensure that the protection and wellbeing of civilians are paramount during the ongoing operations.
As a global humanitarian leader, the UK remains at the forefront of efforts to support the Government of Iraq’s response to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Since June 2014, the Department for International Development has committed £169.5 million to the crisis. A significant proportion of those funds is contributing to the Mosul humanitarian response, and has allowed our partners to make preparations before the start of military operations. We are giving very practical and often life-saving help to vulnerable families. It includes trucking in millions of litres of clean water to people in east Mosul who face severe water shortages, providing shelter, distributing support kits containing blankets and heaters to thousands of displaced families, thus helping them to survive gruelling winter conditions, and giving children access to education and safe spaces.
I remain, however, especially concerned about the plight of civilians who are still trapped in west Mosul by Daesh. We understand that water, food, fuel and medical supplies are worryingly low. Access is all but impossible,  but the UK, together with our partners, is looking at every option for humanitarian assistance. Later this month the UN will launch the 2017 humanitarian response plan for Iraq, which estimates that the humanitarian funding required for 2017 will be $930 million. I continue to call on other donors to follow the lead that the UK is setting. However, the humanitarian efforts alone will not be enough; we will also need to ensure the political climate is right.
Central to efforts to secure stability and peace in the city of Mosul and the governorate of Nineveh post-liberation will be the political arrangements that lay the foundations for the long-term reconciliation that is so important. Securing a sustainable peace in Iraq will require the Iraqi Government, with assistance from the international community, to address Sunni fears and interests, bring communities back together, and ensure that Iraq is placed on the road to stability and—equally important—prosperity. To help to achieve that objective, the UK supports, and provides funds for, the UN’s efforts to encourage reconciliation. We continue to urge Prime Minister Abadi and the Government of Iraq to take the steps that are necessary to ensure that they do not win JUST the war, but the peace. On 17 February my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Prime Minister Abadi in Munich, where they discussed the issue.
Let me now deal with Syria. Regrettably, we are marking the sixth anniversary of the terrible civil war in which civilians continue to suffer so badly. We were pleased that UN-mediated political talks between the Syrian parties resumed in Geneva last month, and that the participants were able to agree on the future agenda. The next round is due to take place later this month. We strongly support the work of the UN and of the special envoy, Staffan de Mistura.
It is clear that there is no military solution to the situation in Syria, and a sustainable political settlement is needed to end the fighting for good. This will require a genuine transition to a new Government that is representative of all Syrians and that will protect all Syrians’ rights.
It is the UK’s long-standing position that there can be no sustainable peace in Syria while Assad remains in power. The atrocities the regime has committed make it impossible for him to unite the country and bring peace. The UN commission of inquiry’s recent report on the Aleppo offensive said that the regime had committed war crimes with its indiscriminate bombing and use of chemical weapons against civilians and its targeting of medical facilities and a humanitarian aid convoy.
The UK continues to call for accountability for these violations and abuses of human rights. In December, we co-sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution to establish an independent mechanism to assist in bringing those responsible for the most serious crimes to justice. Most recently, we worked with the French and the United States on a UN Security Council resolution to hold the regime and Daesh to account for their use of chemical weapons in Syria. We are deeply disappointed that Russia and China chose to veto this resolution.
The UK continues to use its position in the International Syria Support Group and the UN Security Council to support the work of the UN special envoy to bring  peace in Syria. We have called for the ceasefire, brokered by Russia, Iran and Turkey, which came into force on 30 of December, to be strengthened. The regime must abide by the ceasefire and stop taking new territory if the ceasefire is to be credible. Russia and Iran, as guarantors of the agreement, must deliver on their commitments.
The fall of east Aleppo in December was a tragedy that brought home to many the ongoing nightmare being experienced by so many in Syria. Some 13.5 million people are in need of humanitarian support, and 1.5 million of them are living under siege-like conditions. The Assad regime continues to prevent the delivery of life-saving aid.
Through the UK’s humanitarian and diplomatic efforts, we are doing all we can to alleviate the suffering of civilians. We have mounted the UK’s largest ever response to a humanitarian crisis and are using our position in the UN Security Council and the International Syria Support Group to press the regime and its backers to allow aid to reach those who need it, and call for civilians to be protected.
As part of our £2.3 billion pledge to support people affected by the Syrian crisis, we have committed more than £1.2 billion to support refugees in the region. I have seen how our support is making a real impact. In Lebanon, I met Syrian children who, thanks to UK support, now have an opportunity to learn and attend school alongside Lebanese children, after years of suffering. In Jordan, I visited the Azraq refugee camp and witnessed how we are supporting job creation for Syrian refugees. I also discussed with the President of Lebanon and the Prime Minister of Jordan how the UK will continue to lead the scale-up in international support for host countries.
I have met refugee families from Raqqa who told me about their experiences of the daily horror of living under Daesh rule. No child should have to witness kidnappings, public hangings on their streets, and the torture of their friends and families. I spoke to mothers who had lost children as they fled the terror of Daesh.
Despite its claims to be fighting terrorism, Assad’s regime focuses its efforts on eradicating all political opposition in Syria by military means. The regime has left the job of tackling terrorism in Syria to the international community.
Daesh continues to lose territory in Syria. In north-west Syria, Turkish-backed Syrian opposition forces, with support from coalition aircraft, have succeeded in pushing back Daesh and taken al-Bab. Elsewhere, the Syrian Democratic Forces have commenced operations to isolate Daesh’s stronghold in Raqqa, with coalition air support. This is a fight that will take time and patience to get right. The population will need an inclusive and legitimate local authority to represent them.
As well as action on the ground, we have made progress in countering Daesh’s propaganda, which it has used as a recruiting tool. Daesh’s propaganda output has fallen by about 75% over the last year. On social media, anti-Daesh posts now outnumber pro-Daesh propaganda by six to one. The UK is leading coalition efforts to do this.
A year has now passed since the UK co-hosted the “Supporting Syria and the Region” conference in London. Donors pledged over $12 billion, the largest amount raised in a single day for a humanitarian crisis. One year  on, donors have exceeded their pledges for 2016, allocating $8 billion, of which $6.2 billion has been delivered to Syria and the refugee-hosting countries. The UK has set the pace in going above and beyond what was promised, exceeding our 2016 pledge of £510 million, with £550 million in life-saving aid delivered last year. Next month, we are co-hosting the Brussels conference, which will be an important opportunity to take stock of the situation in Syria, reaffirm and build on the London conference commitments, and ensure ongoing support to those in Syria who are in desperate need of help.
In conclusion, much progress has been made against Daesh. Since 2014, it has lost 62% of the territory it once held in Iraq and 30% in Syria, but much more remains to be done. Even when Daesh is militarily defeated, we must continue to be wary of its resurgence. In Iraq this means supporting the Government to restore order and be accountable to all their people to meet their needs. In Syria it means continuing our efforts to deliver a political settlement that enables a transition away from Assad to a Government who serve all the Syrian people.
The protracted crises in Syria and the region are the defining humanitarian challenges of our time. History will judge us if the international community does not deliver on support for affected and displaced Syrian and Iraqi people. Supporting the region is the right thing to do on behalf of those suffering, and it is the right thing to do for the UK, to make us safer. I commend the statement to the House.

Kate Osamor: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today, and I thank her for giving me prior sight of it. There has long been cross-party agreement on the work of the Department for International Development. Its core role is to tackle the global challenges of our time, including poverty and disease, mass migration, insecurity and conflict. We must now come together and give cross-party support for helping the most vulnerable civilian refugees affected by Daesh. Violent actors such as Daesh should be condemned, but we must proceed cautiously and avoid compromising the integrity of UK aid if we are to act in a way that is informed by the evidence of what works to promote sustainable peace and development.
United Nations experts reported in June last year that Daesh was committing genocide against Yazidis and other religious minorities in Syria and Iraq, and destroying minority religious communities through killings, sexual slavery and other awful crimes. I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 in helping the survivors of torture and violence and those who have suffered sexual violence.
I want to ask the Secretary of State a series of questions about her announcement, which I welcome. Will DFID have any input into the drafting of the United Nations Security Council resolution that seeks to establish a UN investigation into Daesh’s crimes in Iraq and Syria? Does she support the UN’s call for all the armed forces involved to avoid the use of heavy weapons in populated areas? The priority is to provide safe passage to get the civilians out. There are around 750,000 people trapped in western Mosul. They have no safe means of exit, and limited or no access to food, water or basic sanitation.
I agree that it is important for all Departments to work together to support sustainable peace and development, and yes, that means seeking to address the causes of conflict and fragility. However, I ask the Secretary of State always to think about the role of DFID and how the Department can best serve those it is intended to serve. Fundamentally, its role is to focus on poverty reduction, and part of that involves working to prevent conflict and violence. To be effective, however, that work must focus on the needs of local populations. Does she agree that in important security operations we must be careful not to securitise the aid that the UK provides, as that can sometimes undermine the effectiveness of aid delivery and put the lives of aid workers at risk?
DFID can and should invest in addressing the causes of conflict and insecurity, as part of a path to sustainable development, and I stress the need for the Department to engage with civil society groups and other local actors in mapping out the long-term future of Iraq and Syria. This will offer hope and certainty to people devastated by these atrocities. That requires the UK to understand the different causes of conflict and instability more broadly, and how DFID can seek to address them through its work. Does the right hon. Lady therefore agree that by focusing on only one actor we can be distracted from tackling issues that are of greatest concern to local people, or that generate conflict in the first place? I believe there is cross-party agreement on helping the most vulnerable, and Britain has a long history of helping those who are fleeing terror and persecution. We should stand together in the House today and support that tradition now. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement.

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She will be the first to recognise the extent of not only DFID’s work, but the British Government’s combined effort, including our first-class diplomacy, how our military and defence teams come together, and our work on the ground in difficult and challenging parts of the world to deliver humanitarian support and, in particular, protect the lives of civilians. Everyone in the House today would pay tribute not only to those on the frontline and the civilians who see the horrors of Daesh day in, day out, but the aid workers and many others who deliver life-saving and life-changing humanitarian support in country.
Our work shows Britain at its best and exactly why we have UK aid. It shows not only how the British Government lead across the world, but how we influence security and stabilisation in many of the areas that the hon. Lady touched on, and how we can work together, including with the United Nations, to bring about peace and address the atrocities and the horror of the crimes of Daesh and the Assad regime. Much of that work is already under way. There is no doubt that it will take time—the evidence-gathering and investigations could take many years—but the entire House can commend not only the work of everyone on the ground in country, but the important international leadership work of the British Government.

Paul Scully: Last year, I met a Yazidi Christian in a refugee camp in Athens who had brought five children, including a 10-year-old boy, over on a dangerous boat trip. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right for the UK to provide  general financial support for refugee centres throughout the middle east? That support must continue for humanitarian reasons, so that families such as the one I mentioned do not have to extend their suffering.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is right. As I mentioned, I have visited the region several times, meeting many refugees who have experienced nothing but trauma on their journeys. The whole House should commend the host countries that are doing tremendous work, and I pay particular tribute to the Governments of Jordan and Lebanon for their outstanding contributions. Through last year’s London Syria conference and the forthcoming Brussels conference, we are giving those host countries every ounce of support, in terms of our pledges and our work to ensure that they can support refugee communities in a sustainable way and to help bring peace and stability to the region.

Patrick Grady: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement; it is always welcome to see her at the Dispatch Box. As the Disasters Emergency Committee today launched an appeal on the famine in east Africa, it may be helpful to hear at some point what DFID is doing in response to that.
I recognise the role that DFID plays in responding to the humanitarian situation—something it can do because it meets the 0.7% aid target. Given that the official development assistance budget is being spread more thinly across Departments, is the Secretary of State confident that DFID has the necessary resources? Will she confirm the Government’s commitment to the aid target, not least because that will encourage others to follow suit and fulfil the pledges that have been made?
Daesh’s activities are causing massive displacement across the region, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure adequate provision for the humanitarian response in the countries that border Iraq and Syria? What support is she able to provide to local civil society, particularly the Churches and faith-based organisations that are often best placed to respond quickly to those in need? Aid for the formal refugee camps is welcome, but what support is being provided to those not in formal camps, particularly in Lebanon?
On the response in Syria, we have repeatedly asked, “If we can drop bombs, why can we not drop bread?” What lessons can be learned from the drone delivery trials in Nepal and Tanzania? What discussions are being had with the US about the joint precision airdrop system? Displacement does not just happen to border countries. The UK needs to commit to taking its fair share of refugees; 20,000 over five years is not a fair share, nor is 350 children under the Dubs scheme. If ODA money is to be used by other Departments, the Home Office can use it for the first year of resettlement.
The former Prime Minister said that UK military involvement in Syria would cut off the head of the snake. Where is the evidence that that has happened? A humanitarian response is the right thing to do, and not only to make us safer; as long as people in Syria and Iraq live with the consequences of UK military adventurism, we have a responsibility to help clean up the mess.

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of points. He specifically mentioned the support that DFID is giving to those outside the camps; he will not be surprised to hear that we are working with partner organisations, non-governmental organisations and charities in Jordan and Lebanon, particularly outside the camps, to provide support directly to refugees.
On bringing about peace and stability, the Government’s objective is long-term stabilisation and humanitarian support. Last year, with the UN, DFID—the British Government—committed substantial resources to pre-preparedness for the Mosul offensive to ensure both that we could protect civilians, and that aid could be provided to people who needed it in light of the offensive.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the important and valuable role of the Government’s legislative and manifesto commitment to the 0.7% target. The Government have been unequivocal in continuing to support that target. On top of what we have been discussing as regards Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and the wider region, a DEC appeal was launched today to address the four potential famines in Somalia, north-east Nigeria, South Sudan and Yemen. We should reflect on the fact that at times of humanitarian crisis, the 0.7% target demonstrates to those who are suffering persecution and displacement who we are as a country, our place in the world, the leadership we give and our response to those who are very much less fortunate than ourselves. That is what UK aid is about. It is about our place in the world, and it is in our national interest to continue doing what we do. Those of us in the House and UK taxpayers can all be proud of that work.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned resettlement schemes. Our resettlement schemes offer a safe and legal route to the UK for the most vulnerable refugees, and the British Government can be proud of what we have been doing to resettle refugees.

Desmond Swayne: Well, I am certainly proud. What are the Government doing to support the programme of reform in Iraq that is so necessary for delivering peace by ensuring that liberated Sunni communities are embraced by the whole political economy of Iraq?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend, as a former DFID Minister, knows better than most the vital role that UK aid plays in the world, particularly in Iraq. In answer to his question, we have been pressing Iraqi leaders and stressing to them at every opportunity the importance of an inclusive political plan for stabilising and rebuilding the country. All groups have to be involved in that rebuilding and stabilisation. Of course, the UK Government and UK aid are providing all the support to reopen schools in east Mosul, and humanitarian assistance to displaced people across Iraq.

Hilary Benn: The whole House will welcome the progress on defeating Daesh in Mosul and elsewhere, and I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the bravery of all the forces, including our RAF pilots, who are engaged in that task.
The Secretary of State referred to the discovery of mass graves, and she will have seen the reports of the now infamous Khasfa sinkhole, which is said to contain thousands of bodies. What action is being taken to  collect forensic evidence? Are we giving assistance? Such evidence will be important in calling to account those who have committed crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, and one way to defeat Daesh ideologically is to tell the truth about what it has done.

Priti Patel: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the starkness of what has taken place. We have to speak the truth and bring the facts about exactly what has been going on to light. He specifically asks what the Government are doing in this area. We are working with the UN and others on the investigations. All colleagues in the House will know that this is difficult and will take time. We have seen in the past the amount of time it takes to get the evidence to secure convictions for war crimes, but that does not mean we should shy away from doing this. The mass graves exist, and we already know the extent of the horrors and atrocities that have taken place. It is in all our interests to stand by those who have suffered or been silenced, to act on their behalf to bring about justice for the victims of these atrocities, and to show the world the appalling nature and conduct of Daesh and those who have been associated with them.

Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State referred to the Syrian Democratic Forces, with coalition air support, commencing operations against Raqqa. Will the Secretary of State inform the House of her assessment, and that of the National Security Council, of Turkish intentions towards the SDF, not least around Manbij? Will she also give her assessment of what Turkish engagement there will be in the political arrangements for the reconciliation around Mosul, not least given Turkey’s military presence in Bashiqa, and the recent discussions between President Erdogan and Masoud Barzani?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He will recognise and appreciate that we are working to bring all parties to the table, although we face difficult challenges in getting parties to come together. We have seen greater developments through the Astana process, and our priority is to support Staffan de Mistura to make sure that we can drive the right outcomes and get parties talking to seek the peaceful resolutions we desperately need.

Stephen Twigg: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and particularly the strength of her point about our investment in Syria and Iraq being a fine example of UK aid at its very best. I wish to ask her about a specific issue: the mines around Mosul and de-mining. I understand that there is a real concern among internally displaced people in Iraq about going back to Mosul because of the mines. Co-ordination is essential, so will she say a bit more about international co-ordination and, in particular, about which Department is leading on this? Is it DFID, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Ministry of Defence?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. This is an important area, and I mentioned in my statement the importance and significance of de-mining. There is no doubt that we have to invest in it, so that we can return the land securely to the community and they  can get on with their lives. The MOD is leading on this activity, but he will know, from discussions we have had on the significance and importance of de-mining, that from a development perspective we must support, fund and back it. I see this as a cross-Government initiative.

Paul Beresford: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and I wonder whether she could extend this update geographically. I have an interest in a potentially large humanitarian action project going into Libya, so it would be of considerable interest to me if she could, either verbally now or in writing later, give me an update on the action being taken to remove Daesh and its fellow travellers from Sirte and its surroundings. What forces are taking that action?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his important question about Libya. A joint FCO and DFID team is working on the wider issues relating to Libya, which cover a range of things. Obviously, there has been a lot of activity and action not only around Sirte, but on dealing with some of the migration challenges we are facing. I will write to him so that we can give him the specific details on that cross-Government work, covering fully not only the DFID aspect, but the FCO aspect.

Ruth Smeeth: I join colleagues in sending our thoughts and prayers to everyone on deployment, as well as to the Secretary of State’s staff and others who are on the ground delivering humanitarian aid. Will she update the House with the specifics of what we are doing to strengthen local democracy throughout Iraq, especially in the regions, to win the peace, as she says?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and for the support she and other Members have given to all the people delivering aid in difficult, challenging locations. A political process is obviously under way, on which the Foreign Office is leading. As I mentioned in the statement, the Foreign Secretary has been engaging with Prime Minister al-Abadi and the Iraqi Government on the political side. Linked to that is the wider work on stabilisation, which has to be integrated at every level, including all aspects of state building, nation building and the building of democracy and civil society, as well as some of the most basic things for the functioning of a society, such as infrastructure and the delivery of public goods and services. A great deal of work has taken place across Government, involving the MOD, the FCO and DFID, through the stabilisation team and the combined teams. We are advocating a combined and integrated approach, and we have to work with the Iraqi Government, because ultimately they are responsible for delivery.

Stewart Jackson: The Secretary of State is quite right in what she has said, and I welcome her timely statement. I pay tribute not only to the compassion and humanitarian efforts of British citizens, but to the courage of our armed forces. On winning the peace, will my right hon. Friend undertake to work with the Home Office to ensure that British jihadists who return from Syria are properly de-radicalised, using a proper strategy, and that there will be the most  draconian efforts to deal with those who are not de-radicalised, so that we can protect our constituents and our country?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. Everyone who returns, having been involved in the conflict, must be subject to the right kind of sanctions and be reviewed by the police to determine whether they have committed offences. He also raises an important point about our collective work across Government. Everything that DFID, the FCO, the MOD and the Home Office do to fight the forces of terrorism is done in our national interest. That is why our focus is on protecting not only those in Iraq and Syria who are subject to Daesh’s atrocities, but our citizens in this country, too.

Tom Brake: In a meeting earlier, members of the Iraqi Democratic Movement stressed the need in Mosul to ensure: first, that refugees are screened safely, in a transparent and accountable way, to make sure there are no disappearances; secondly, that electricity and other services are restored as soon as possible, so that the internally displaced persons can return; and finally, that a high-profile UN presence is deployed to provide reassurance to civilians. What support can the British Government give on those issues?

Priti Patel: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and we agree with him completely about the approach to refugees and the right kind of screening. We need to get in resources, such as electricity and water, for IDPs, so that they have all the essential life-saving and humanitarian support they require. The United Nations Development Programme is on the ground and a great deal of work is taking place. I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with more information about the collective work that is taking place, because the British Government have cross-Government resources in country. We spent time prior to the Mosul offensive pre-positioning supplies and support, and we are of course working with UN agencies and our partners on the ground. I would be happy to share with him some of the detail of that work.

Julian Brazier: In welcoming my right hon. Friend’s comments about supporting the Governments of Lebanon and Jordan, which are carrying so much of the burden, may I also remind her that while the military mission in Lebanon—or the ex-military mission—is achieving miracles on very small amounts of resources, it does need more help? There is a really serious military threat, which puts at risk 1.5 million refugees and 4 million Lebanese.

Priti Patel: We have a combined approach across Government. My hon. Friend is right to point out that Lebanon is under great pressure. It has more than 1 million refugees who effectively outnumber the Lebanese community. There are wide-ranging pressures on the economy and the military. I have been to some of the very difficult parts of Lebanon and seen at first-hand how hard it is to get the balance right. There is the Brussels conference coming up. We will look at the resources that need to be allocated, and the pledging  that will inevitably take place. As I said in my statement, the United Kingdom is absolutely committed to both Jordan and Lebanon, and that commitment will be demonstrated in our pledging and in our wider political support.

Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State has referred to support for the Iraqi Government, but is she also aware that there are hundreds of thousands of Syrian Kurdish refugees in the Kurdistan region of Iraq and, in addition, even greater numbers of internally displaced Iraqis, including many who have come from the area near Mosul? As we liberate Mosul, there will be even greater pressure on the Kurdistan Regional Government. What specific help are the Government giving today, and what help will they give in future to the KRG authorities, because they sometimes have difficulties with Baghdad?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. We have Ministers who are working directly with the Kurdistan Government, and support is going in to help the refugees. Importantly, his point demonstrates the extent of the crisis in the region, the level of displacement that is taking place and the challenges that need to be overcome.

Bob Stewart: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give us an update on what is happening in Aleppo? For instance, is British aid getting through to the citizens of Aleppo at the moment?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend will be well aware that the Aleppo situation is still very difficult—quite frankly it is traumatic and harrowing. There are grave difficulties in getting aid into Aleppo. As I said in my statement, we saw the atrocities and the extent of the pressures in the area in December. That said, we are looking at every single possible avenue that we can use to get aid not only into Aleppo, but into other besieged areas. That is a continuing focus of DFID and of the wider humanitarian community.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her interesting statement, particularly in relation to the work around children. What is being done to help support and empower women to rebuild the civil society of which she correctly speaks, and what support is being offered on the ground to women and young people so that they can resist the ongoing call to arms from Daesh, which uses their desperation and their need for cash?

Priti Patel: Many of our programmes, and a substantial amount of our resources, are focused on women, children and young people. We want to ensure that young people have opportunities—and education is at the heart of that—to prevent them from being subject to propaganda and to manipulation by these evil forces in the region. Our work is ongoing. We are working with civil society, NGOs and third-party organisations in the region to put the protections in place, because safeguarding and security are paramount for women, children and young people. As I have said, we also want to ensure that children and young people have the opportunity to access education and other schemes as well so that they are not subject to the extreme propaganda of Daesh.

Philip Hollobone: How many UK nationals have joined, or attempted to join, Daesh in Syria and Iraq, and how many have been apprehended and prosecuted?

Priti Patel: I do not have that information to hand. I will investigate and see whether I can share that information with my hon. Friend.

George Howarth: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement unreservedly. Does she agree that in a chronically unstable region, the presence of Daesh serves only to intensify the instability? Does she also agree that the only way to resolve the situation is not only to defeat Daesh militarily, but to defeat the perverted ideology it represents?

Priti Patel: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The objective has to be to defeat not only Daesh’s military capability on the ground, but everything it stands for—its ideology and the spread of hate and evil it perpetrates.

John Howell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and on our success against Daesh in Syria. Has she looked at the impact of that success on the activities of Daesh in other parts of the world—for example, its support of Boko Haram in Nigeria?

Priti Patel: We learn lessons all the time and assess all activities. My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to praise our armed forces—the RAF and others—who have been at the forefront of much of the work we have been discussing.

John Woodcock: Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) about the need to counter the ideology of jihadist Salafism, can the Secretary of State give more detail about the investment being made here in the UK and abroad, military and civil, in directly countering and enabling others to counter the narrative that is drawing in so many people? Will she make that strand a routine element of the updates the Government give in future?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman is right that that is a matter of enormous importance to this Government and all others internationally who are fighting the forces of Daesh. In my statement, I said that the UK is heavily involved in coalition efforts on propaganda. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), will be in Washington next week at the counter-Daesh coalition conference, where the UK leads in this area, and he will be happy to report back and update hon. Members on progress. In addition, work is taking place here that is fundamental to countering Daesh’s propaganda.

Maria Caulfield: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which highlights the sterling work being done by her Department and the UK Government as a whole, but may I ask specifically about the Yazidi women and children who have faced a campaign of genocide by Daesh? What help is being given to those who have managed to flee, as well as to the thousands who are still being held captive by Daesh?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend highlights the atrocious conduct of Daesh. Of course we in this House squarely and fully condemn Daesh’s brutality against ethnic minorities. UK aid is distributed to all those my hon. Friend refers to, including members of minorities and Yazidi women and girls. We have touched on the subject a number of times in this House and we have all seen and heard about the horrors of the persecution of minorities and Yazidis. UK aid is very much focused on giving them support, and I think that is something we can all be incredibly proud of.

Anna Turley: I appreciate the Secretary of State’s statement today. I want to ask about her statement that “We…are using our position in the UN Security Council and the International Syria Support Group to press the regime and its backers to allow aid to reach those who need it, and call for civilians to be protected.” Will she say more about what success we are having and what barriers and obstacles we are facing? Also, what we are doing with the £2.3 billion that is going in to Syria outside the support for refugees? What is actually reaching people in the country?

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady hits the nail on the head. We are working in a challenging situation. Basically, we need peace and stability to achieve the outcomes I described in my statement. We are using everything—every single ounce of capital we have—to lobby and influence, exactly as she would expect us to do. Our commitment to Syria has been substantial. Much of the £2.3 billion she referred to has been concentrated in the wider region, but we are also funding agencies and working with partners such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF, and the wide matrix of agencies, with which we have a strong working relationship, to provide life-saving support—food, water, shelter and medical supplies.
The situation is incredibly challenging. There are still people we cannot reach in besieged areas. Our No. 1 objective and priority is ensure that aid from the UK and from the whole international community reaches the people who have not seen any aid for not just weeks but months.

Robert Jenrick: Have the Government given any further consideration, since the House last debated the matter, to recognising the crimes against the Yazidis as a genocide? Are the Government willing to support a rehabilitation and recovery programme, such as the one that Germany has just launched, for Daesh survivors particularly the Yazidis who are now resident outside Iraq? Following on from the question of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), will the UK deploy its own forensics experts to examine those mass graves as soon as possible? It is not just about bringing people to justice; it is for the loved ones, from the Yazidi community and elsewhere, to be able to identify the bodies of those who have been killed.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend raises important and significant points about the mass graves. We are already providing support to the investigations that are taking place. As I said earlier, the evidence collation is challenging and difficult. On genocide and the crimes of the persecution of Yazidis, we are working throughout the system to look into the horrors that have taken place. Of course,  the term “genocide” comes up against legal definitions but, as I have said, we will look at all aspects of this. The only way that we can defeat what has happened and address the horrors is by taking all the actions needed to call Daesh out and take the necessary steps forward.

Chris Evans: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I associate myself with all the comments about our coalition forces and the aid workers working in very difficult circumstances in Iraq and Syria. It is good news that eastern Mosul has been liberated. No doubt, western Mosul will follow. Once it is liberated, along with Raqqa, there is no doubt that Daesh will not see this as the end of the caliphate. Many fighters will be returning to their home countries so, further to the question of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), will the Secretary of State fill the House in on the conversations she is having with our international partners to ensure that those who return to their countries are not radicalised?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this point. Of course, radicalisation is exactly why these individuals and organisations exist. This is a collective effort. As I mentioned, the counter-Daesh coalition is meeting next week. The issue is an ongoing part of discussions taking place not just across our Government, but within the international community. The objectives have to be to stamp Daesh out, and to end the radicalisation, propaganda, hate and evil that it is spreading.

Mims Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for the welcome update, her unstinting personal commitment to the cause, her Department’s work and all that the humanitarian co-workers and NGOs are doing on the ground. The news of the possible famine brings into focus our commitment to what we deliver in areas of need. Six years on, Syria remains heart-breaking to my constituents, who continue to write to me about the relief effort, but they would like us to push further on other countries’ commitments to doing the same in the area.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention the horrors of Syria on the sixth anniversary of the conflict, and the fact that others in the international  community need to step up. As I said in my statement, the pledging conference in London last year was a great success and brought in great resources for Syria and the region, but the international community does need to step up. We are seeing famines and humanitarian crises around the world. I have been one of the first to call out and call on others to step up. Britain is out there already, providing support in Somalia, South Sudan, north-east Nigeria and Yemen, but we need to ask others to do more. We cannot deal with these challenges on our own, so the international community absolutely needs to step up.

James Berry: Further to the previous question, the UK is one of only six countries, and the only G7 country, to meet the 0.7% aid commitment, and as with the 2% NATO commitment, we do that by making tough choices about public spending elsewhere. Will my right hon. Friend therefore confirm to those in doubt that it is by meeting that aid commitment that we are able to lead the way in helping civilians who are displaced and terrorised by Daesh?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Britain stands tall in the world through our support and aid, but also through our first-class diplomacy, our commitment to NATO and our defence teams. When we see humanitarian suffering in crises around the world, Britain is leading the way and, as a result, others are following in terms of the commitments that they, too, are now making.

Graham Evans: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the work her Department does on behalf of the British people, as the second-largest donor to the region—second only to the United States. However, the United Kingdom is under severe threat of Islamic terrorist attacks, so will she join me in paying tribute to those security services that help to keep us safe and that have foiled 12 terrorist plots since September 2013?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his remarks. He is absolutely right: we are protected in this country by amazing individuals in our security services. I also pay tribute to others around the world and to our armed forces for doing so much to counter the evil forces we have been discussing this afternoon.

Point of Order

Alison Thewliss: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that, in just a few weeks’ time, this heartless Tory Government plan to enact a pernicious two-child policy and medieval rape clause. With just 23 days until the policy comes into force, the hundreds of thousands of health professionals and social workers in the UK have not been given adequate sexual violence training, and nor has the necessary statutory instrument been laid before this House. Can you advise me on whether the Government have given any indication about whether they will bring one before the House, and when? If not, what options are available to me to bring Ministers before the House to account for this utterly appalling plan and lack of detail, which are causing considerable concern to women and public service workers across the UK?

Natascha Engel: I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. I understand that the Government have laid the regulations this afternoon and that these will be subject to the usual procedures—they are quite complicated, so she might want to come to talk to a Clerk. They are subject to a negative procedure, but it is open to the hon. Lady to pray against them and seek a debate. I would point out to her that it is business questions tomorrow, so she may want to raise this with the Leader of the House then. There is also always the Backbench Business Committee or an Adjournment debate as a possible option for her. I thank her very much for her point of order.

NETWORK RAIL (SCOTLAND)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Drew Hendry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the transfer of land and assets in Scotland currently in the ownership of Network Rail Limited to a body nominated by the Scottish Government; to transfer responsibilities for the management of the land and assets transferred and for the management and accountability for rail infrastructure in Scotland to the Scottish Government; and for connected purposes.
If we are to provide a meaningful future for people, improve their lives, and help them to remain connected and be better connected with their friends and neighbours, the best way to make sure there are opportunities for social progress, to boost trade and to ensure people’s unique circumstances are represented is to bring power as close to home as possible.
Nowhere is the opportunity for rapid benefit more evident than in the current situation with Network Rail in Scotland. Network Rail employees around Scotland work hard, but the organisation simply is not accountable for the work it is asked to undertake on behalf of the Scottish Government. Devolving control over Network Rail to the Scottish Parliament would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of railway operations in Scotland, saving around £100 million a year, and that is before the hundreds of millions in cost overruns are calculated.
Fifty-four per cent. of delay minutes in Scotland are directly attributed to Network Rail. Critical functions such as capacity planning, major project delivery, timetabling and legal property management functions therefore need to be devolved.
As I said, the Scottish Government fund Network Rail and set out its objectives, yet they cannot hold Network Rail to account for those objectives. It is a ridiculous situation that would not be accepted anywhere else and should not be accepted for the people of Scotland. An independent review of major rail projects concluded that there are fundamental weaknesses in Network Rail’s delivery of major projects in Scotland. It highlighted a £379 million increase in project costs and exposed weaknesses in Network Rail’s project governance, controls and performance reporting. It also highlighted weak and inconsistent cost forecasting and, on top of that, significantly higher costs to comply with national standards.
The decision by the UK Government to sell off public assets in their relentless ideological drive toward further privatisation is the wrong track to take, and the Secretary of State for Transport will find no support for it from the Scottish National party. There is, however, one statement that he has made, underlining the challenges for railway development, that we can agree with. On 6 December last year, he said, when speaking about the Oxford to Cambridge line:
“Train companies take the blame for the problems of Network Rail—and Network Rail has little or no contact with passengers, and so has had little reason to focus on the best possible customer service. In my experience passengers don’t understand the division between the two. They just want someone to be in charge. I agree with them. Report after report commissioned by the Government has pointed in the direction of a simpler railway, with less contracting complexity, and more localised decision making.”
He added:
“Whether it’s planning essential repairs, putting in place improvements that can squeeze extra services in on a crowded route, or responding quickly to a problem on the network, our railway is much better run by one joined up team of people.”
The UK Government can sort this. The flashing warning light for us is this: if the controller feels this is the right approach to conduct for Cambridge and Oxford, why is it not right for Scotland?
That is not the only perhaps surprising view that we agree with. We also agree with the former Labour Transport Minister, Tom Harris, who called for Network Rail in Scotland to be fully accountable to the Scottish Government, saying:
“Instead, we need fundamental change to the governance of Network Rail. The Scottish Government is responsible for the strategic direction and funding of the Scottish rail network, but this responsibility cannot be properly exercised while Network Rail remains answerable to the UK Government. Reform Scotland believes that Network Rail in Scotland should be fully accountable to the Scottish Government, and that means it must be devolved.”
Devolution of Network Rail is the sensible and best approach. Transport is already devolved; it therefore surely follows that the management of rail infrastructure should also be devolved. No reasonable person, even in a domestic situation, would agree to commission works, agree to pay for those works, and then have no rights over the final cost or any comeback if it went beyond the agreed timescales—so why should Scotland? It is no surprise that the Secretary of State for Transport cannot sell the idea to the private sector. He is happy to indulge in the retrograde step and slippery slope of privatisation of Network Rail, in effect devolving it to the private sector, yet we are to be told that step is not available for the public sector in Scotland. Instead of making ill-judged and poorly thought out moves towards ever increasing privatisation for the UK’s railways, the UK Government should be giving power over Network Rail to the Scottish Parliament, which can then make decisions to improve the service in Scotland for the Scottish public.
There are challenges in Scotland with the rail network, but even being held back by the current arrangements, 92 out of 100 Scotrail trains arrive at their destination within the recognised punctuality measure—92%, compared with 87% on average across the rest of the UK. The SNP Scottish Government have ensured that fares are capped, and passengers travelling on both ScotRail’s peak and off-peak services have regulated fares. As a result, they are benefiting from the lowest level of increases since the selected powers were devolved in 2005. All of that proves that where powers reside in Scotland, a better deal for the Scottish public can be delivered. Customer satisfaction in Scotland is seven points higher than average in the rest of the UK, and that is a good foundation to build on.
We could take even greater steps to improve those figures if control was within the power of the Scottish Parliament. The former Labour Transport Minister agrees that devolving control over Network Rail to  Scotland is the right move, and the Secretary of State for Transport clearly agrees with the principle, even if he is unwilling to apply it to Scotland, so why wait? All powers to make decisions on Scotland should be taken in Scotland, where we can plan better long-term outcomes. There should never be even the remotest possibility that we might be forced to swallow the bitter pill prescribed by some future Dr Beeching. We are still recovering from the resulting harmful and unnecessary surgery, as is best demonstrated by the rebuilding of the fantastic new Borders rail link. Of course, we should never have had to undertake that reconstructive surgery in the first place.
Scotland is a country teeming with talented people who can—if given the freedom to do so, with powers reclaimed in order to look after the interests of all of her citizens—deliver on a vision for a fairer, better connected and inclusive society. The people of Scotland will have their voice heard on this issue and many others in due course. Scotland is at a junction: we can continue with the tired old Southern rail approach—in the rickety old carriage, with the glum passengers, without even a seat on the train and being ignored by those making the decisions—or we could choose to get off the one-way track into the buffers. With the powers to make choices in Scotland, starting now with those over Network Rail, we could plan a journey to a better, more open and more connected Scotland, a journey of discovery and potential realised for all who call Scotland their home.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Drew Hendry, Alex Salmond, Jonathan Edwards, Mark Durkan, Michelle Thomson, Roger Mullin, Caroline Lucas, Stewart Malcolm McDonald, Alan Brown and Kirsty Blackman present the Bill.
Drew Hendry accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 155).

HEALTH SERVICE MEDICAL SUPPLIES (COSTS) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 24 October 2016 (Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Lords Amendments Nos. 3, 1, 2 and 4 to 24.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Dunne.)
Question agreed to.

Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Natascha Engel: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1, 2, 18, 19 and 21. If the House agrees them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
Before Clause 1

Duty to have regard to the life sciences sector and access to new medicines and treatments

Philip Dunne: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.

Natascha Engel: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4 to 24.

Philip Dunne: I remind the House of the importance of this Bill. NHS spending on medicines is second only to staffing costs. The NHS in England spent more than £15 billion on medicines during 2015-16, a rise of nearly 20% since 2010-11. With advances in science and our ageing population, the costs will only continue to grow.
The UK has a lot to be proud of: we have a world-class science base and an excellent reputation for the quality and rigour of our clinical trials and the data they produce. The UK has one of the strongest life sciences industries in the world, generating turnover of more than £60 billion each year. Indeed, it is our most productive industry. The Government are deeply committed to supporting it to flourish and, in doing so, to provide jobs and transform the health of the nation.
In the 2016 autumn statement, an additional £4 billion of investment in research and development was announced, specifically targeted at industry-academia collaboration. We expect the life sciences industry to be a substantial beneficiary. That comes on top of measures such as the patent box and the R and D tax credits that the Government have introduced to encourage investment from innovative businesses.
That determined action is reaping rewards. The UK ranks top among the major European economies for foreign direct investment projects in life sciences. Last month, the Danish drugs company Novo Nordisk announced a new £115 million investment in a science research centre in Oxford. That comes on top of an additional investment of £275 million announced by GSK last June and AstraZeneca reaffirming its commitment to a £390 million investment to establish headquarters and a research centre in Cambridge—it is good to see the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) in his place. Looking ahead, Professor Sir John Bell, the regius professor of medicine at Oxford, has agreed to lead the development of a new life sciences strategy for the long-term success of UK.
At the same time, it is important that we secure better value for money for the NHS from its growing spend on medicines and other medical supplies. I remind the House that, overall, the Bill will do three things. First, it  will enable us broadly to align our statutory scheme for the control of prices of branded medicines with our voluntary scheme, by introducing the possibility of a payment percentage for the statutory scheme. That could deliver £90 million of savings annually for the NHS. Secondly, the Bill will give us stronger powers to set the prices of unbranded generic medicines if companies charge unwarranted prices in the absence of competition.
Thirdly, the Bill will give us stronger powers to require companies in the supply chain for medicines, medical supplies and other related products to provide us with information. We will use that information to operate our pricing schemes, to reimburse community pharmacies for the products they dispense and to assure ourselves that the supply chain of specific products provides value for money for the NHS and the taxpayer.
During the Bill’s passage through the other place, the Government tabled 23 amendments, following debate and discussion in this House and with peers. I firmly believe that those amendments make it a better Bill. However, I will start with Lords amendment 3 and set out the reasons why it does not improve the Bill.
Lords amendment 3 would introduce a duty on the Government, in exercising their functions to control costs, to have “full regard” to the need to
“promote and support a growing life sciences sector”
and the need to ensure that patients have access to new medicines. The amendment would undermine one of the core purposes of the Bill by hindering the ability of the Government to put effective cost controls in place. Controlling the prices of medicines cannot, in itself, promote the interests of the life sciences sector and deliver growth. Having such a requirement in legislation could encourage companies to bring legal challenges where the cost controls have not, in themselves, promoted growth in the life sciences industry. That could significantly hinder the Government’s ability to exercise their powers to control costs effectively.
For example, if the Government were to take action to control the price of an unbranded generic medicine, because it was clear that the company was exploiting the NHS—several examples of that have been raised throughout the Bill’s passage through this House—it could be argued that that action did not promote the life sciences sector, because every generic drugs manufacturer could argue that it is a life sciences company. Nevertheless, that would, of course, be the right thing to do for the NHS, for patients and for taxpayers. Lords amendment 3 would enable companies to challenge any action by the Government to control costs by arguing that proper regard had not been given to supporting a growing life sciences industry. The amendment would therefore make it more difficult to control costs, including where companies seek to exploit the NHS over and above the interests of patients, clinicians and taxpayers.
I say gently to those on the Labour Benches that it is ironic that they talk tough on the pharma companies, which they claim in other forums routinely seek to exploit the NHS, when today they are arguing the cause of the industry by supporting an amendment that would provide it with a legal stick with which to challenge the NHS when it seeks to control the costs of drugs, some of which, as they acknowledge, are exorbitantly priced. I therefore have to ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders): whose side is Labour on?
The Government are seriously concerned that Lords amendment 3 has the potential to impact negatively on our ability to control costs. I do not expect that that was the aim of well-intentioned Members in the other place. I hope both Houses agree that it would be damaging to the NHS if, on every occasion that the Government deem it necessary to use their powers to control costs, the Government could be challenged for failing to give full regard to promoting the interests of life sciences companies.
The second part of Lords amendment 3 requires the Secretary of State to have full regard to the need for NHS patients to benefit from swift access to innovative medicines that have been recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence through its technology appraisals. However, NHS commissioners are already legally required to fund drugs and other treatments recommended in NICE technology appraisal guidance, normally within three months of final guidance. The Secretary of State’s power to control costs is a completely separate process. Therefore, this part of the amendment would not achieve anything.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister is of course absolutely right on the primacy of NICE in this matter, but today the NICE board will be imposing a budget threshold of £20 million a year, which would have the effect of at least delaying or possibly preventing the roll-out of new medicines. Does he share my concerns, particularly in relation to cancer drugs?

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend is right to point out that NICE is considering today in its board meeting thresholds for the introduction of new medicines. What I would not do, however, is share his concern that it will necessarily lead to delay in their take-up. In essence, it will provide NHS England with greater commercial flexibility to negotiate with drugs companies that propose to introduce a drug that may cost more than £20 million in a full year. It will give NHS England more time to negotiate a lower price with the pharma company. That should not, in and of itself, lead to either delay or less take-up.
I am aware of the concerns, expressed by my hon. Friend, other Members and some charities in a national newspaper today, about the joint NICE and NHS England consultation on the proposed changes to the appraisal and adoption of new technologies. There have been suggestions by Opposition Members that this is rationing of NICE-approved medicines. I assure the House that that is not the case. Patients will continue to have the right to NICE-recommended drugs, as enshrined in the NHS constitution. The proposals are intended to ensure that patients benefit from even faster access to the most cost-effective treatments, while addressing issues of affordability as well as effectiveness.
Let me be very clear: Lords amendment 3 would not impact on the proposals; the NHS will continue to fund a product approved by NICE, in line with NICE recommendations. I also remind Members that NICE and NHS England are making the changes to address concerns about the affordability of high-cost new drugs and other technologies that were raised by the Public Accounts Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier).
I have read the suggestion by the Opposition that the NICE and NHS England proposals would be contrary to our intent to increase the uptake of new medicines. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), that is false. In reality, last year saw spend on medicines grow more quickly than in any of the past 10 years, as we seek to secure rapid access to new medicines for patients.
Access to medicines is primarily dependent on clinicians’ choices about what is best for their patients. Clinicians need to be aware of new medicines and persuaded that they may be a better option for their individual patients, taking into account other conditions each patient may have and other medicines they are taking. We need to change the culture and behaviour of those clinicians who may be reluctant to use innovative medicines, and legislation is not the right way to effect behaviour change in the NHS.

Bob Stewart: I want to ask a layman’s question: if NICE approves a drug, is the NHS necessarily required to buy it?

Philip Dunne: The short answer is yes, it is. That is set out in the NHS constitution. The measures considered by the NICE board today provide some additional flexibility for NHS England in its handling of negotiations with the drugs companies over the introduction of new technology.
Let me conclude on amendment 3 by saying that the Government strongly believe that it would have a negative impact on the Government’s ability to operate price controls, so I ask Members to disagree with it.
I will deal briefly with the other amendments. Lords amendments 1 and 2 and amendments 4 to 24 were made in the other place. They are all amendments that the Government brought forward, having worked constructively with parliamentarians on improving the Bill.
Amendments 1 and 2 relate to the remuneration for persons providing pharmaceutical services in England and Wales respectively. The amendments provide for new regulation-making powers in respect of special medicinal products. These are unlicensed medicines that can be manufactured or imported to meet a patient’s individual needs when no licensed product is available.
The unique nature of specials—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) mentioned them during our consideration in this place—and their manufacturing arrangements mean that we need to do more to ensure that the prices paid by the NHS represent value for money for all these products. These amendments would enable England and Wales to develop options that will secure improved value for money—for example, by using a quotes system that has been trialled in Scotland, but there are also other options. We will consult the community pharmacy representative body on how best to take this forward.
Amendments 4 to 7 introduce a consultation requirement on the Government with regards to medical supplies. Again, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire helpfully pointed out that such a requirement was in place for medicines, but not for medical supplies. I thank her for engaging with me and my officials, which has helped to improve the Bill.
The Government have listened to concerns in the House of Lords and in this House about the Government’s power to control the prices of medical supplies. These amendments would ensure that the first order to control the price of any medical supply would be subject to the affirmative procedure, giving both Houses an opportunity to discuss that order.
Amendments 8 and 9 and 15 to 17 are amendments to the information powers in the Bill. Responding to concerns from industry about the potential burdens of the proposed information power, they introduce an additional hurdle for the Government to obtain information by requiring them to issue an information notice whenever they require companies to provide cost information related to individual products, which can be appealed by the company concerned.

John Redwood: One problem in coming to a fair price for a new drug—we want to reward the company for its innovation, but without being ripped off—is knowing what kind of production run or demand there might be for it. Is there any way that the NHS could get better at forecasting what its volume might be, as that might drive the price down?

Philip Dunne: As ever, my right hon. Friend, who is a champion of market solutions to some of these tricky problems, lights on an important point. We need to be better at trying to predict the take-up of medicines. Of course, until a new medicine has been introduced, it is very difficult to assess that, because it requires clinicians to get behind the product and to choose to prescribe it. He is absolutely right that we need to look at the way in which we model in order to have a negotiation with the pharmaceutical company that ensures that we build in as good a volume as we are expecting to maximise our prospects of getting the best price.
Let me return to Lords amendments 8, 9 and 15 to 17. When the Government ask a company to provide straightforward information about prices and other transaction costs or overall costs, there is no need for an information notice. The rationale is that there could be a significant burden on companies to provide product-level cost information. Any such request should be made only in exceptional circumstances—for example, in order to set the price of an unbranded generic medicine, when the Government would need insight into the costs and profits associated with the specific product.
Lords amendments 10 to 14 were intended to reflect the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place, which considered that the power to prescribe in regulations that any person other than the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers could disclose information was too wide. Lords amendments 10, 13 and 14 specify health service bodies and NHS foundation trusts. In respect of other amendments made to the NHS (Wales) Act 2006, the Committee thought that the penalties that Welsh Ministers could impose for non-compliance should be included in the Bill and not left to regulations, and that is what amendments 11 and 12 would achieve.
Lords amendments 18, 19 and 20 are consequential amendments relating to the extent of the Bill. Lords amendments 21 to 24 are partly consequential, and  partly provide for flexibility to allow the provisions to come into force in Northern Ireland at a later stage if necessary. Unfortunately, as Members will know, the Northern Ireland Assembly was unable to pass a legislative consent motion on the Bill before it was dissolved.
I believe that those Government amendments, built on engagement with Members of both Houses and with industry, will help to improve the Bill further.

Justin Madders: I support the Lords amendments. I believe that they will improve the Bill significantly, and that they draw on many of the points that Opposition Members made during its earlier stages.
When I was asked to lead the debate for the Opposition—it was the first time that I had done so on a Government Bill—I was assured by my colleagues that this Bill was relatively short, but in comparison with the legislation that we passed on Monday, it strikes me as something of an epic. I only hope that we have more success today than we did on Monday with the amendments that were passed in the other place. As with that other Bill, however, the length of this Bill should not in any way detract from its importance. The exploitation of loopholes by a small number of unscrupulous companies left the Government with no option but to act, and we agree with the thrust of the Bill. We welcome the Lords amendments, both those that the Government are supporting today and the amendment relating to a duty to have regard to the life sciences sector and access to new medical treatments.
Let me first deal with the matters on which there is agreement. Lords amendments 1 and 2 relate to special medicinal products. They will do much to improve the reimbursement for specials, given that the current arrangements are in many cases failing to secure value for money for the taxpayer. As the Minister will know, there is a significant price variation between hospital and community care, with the result that many patients are currently denied access to some specials. The amendments could lead to significant savings throughout the NHS by introducing a more cost-effective whole- market procurement system, as well as having the potential to improve access to treatments. I am pleased that there now appears to be cross-party consensus that action is needed. However, I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that any savings made as a result of the amendment will be used to improve access to specials and other new treatments, rather than simply being returned to general budgets.
We also support Lords amendments 4 to 7, which relate to medical supplies. They add a much-needed duty to consult before introducing secondary legislation to control the prices of medical supplies. That goes some way to addressing widespread concerns throughout the sector about the failure to engage before measures relating to medical supplies were introduced in the Bill. Lords amendment 7 would subject the first order to control the prices of medical supplies to the affirmative procedure. That means that if the Government wanted to introduce a new pricing scheme, they would have to convince Parliament that there was a case for doing so.
When we last debated these issues, concerns were expressed that the Government were asking us to give them powers in respect of medical supplies, but were not in a position to tell us how they might be used. The  amendment does much to allay those concerns by giving a further opportunity for challenge should Ministers wish to exercise those powers. We are pleased that the Government have given some ground in that regard.
We also welcome Lords amendments 8 to 10, which introduce a trigger mechanism for information-gathering powers. These amendments make it clear that the Government would be required to issue an information notice before they could collect certain types of information. Amendment 9 sets out in detail what information would need to be provided, as well as the related form, manner and timings. Importantly, it would also introduce a right of appeal for those served with an information notice. This again goes some way towards resolving the concerns that we set out in this place about the potentially onerous effect of the new information-gathering powers.
Lords amendments 11 to 14 relate to the provision of information to Welsh Ministers and stem from the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place. We welcome these measures, which I understand also have the support of the Welsh Assembly. We also support the remaining amendments, which are consequential.
That leaves us with amendment 3, which would introduce a duty on the Government when implementing the legislation to have regard to the life sciences sector and access to new medicines and treatments. This measure received cross-party support in the other place and I am disappointed that the Government intend to oppose it today.
We strongly support the core of the Bill, which seeks to close loopholes and to secure better value for money for the NHS from its negotiations with the pharmaceutical sector. However, if amendment 3 does not form part of the final legislation, the Bill will be looked upon as a missed opportunity.
The likely departure of the European Medicines Agency raises extremely worrying questions about the future of the life sciences and the pharmaceutical industry in this country. It is reported that up to 20 other countries are now queuing up to host it after it leaves these shores. That shows just what an attractive proposition it is for those looking to say to the sector, “This is a place to invest in.”
We have the strategic disaster of the EMA going against a backdrop of the sector’s investment in R and D already reducing in recent years. Between 2003 and 2011 there was significant growth in spending in this area, eventually reaching a peak of £5 billion. However, by 2014 that had fallen to £4 billion, a reduction of 20% in just three years. We are extremely concerned that the potential loss of the EMA could see this figure fall back even further.
Over the last six years, we have ended up with the worst of all worlds: falling investment in R and D by the pharmaceutical industry and appalling rationing of treatments, leaving patients unable to access a range of medicines and treatments unless they have the means to pay for them privately. Members on both sides are beginning to find it ever more frustrating that when increasingly crude and arbitrary rationing is raised, the response from the Minister is often to agree with the concern, but simply to say that it is a matter for the  individual clinical commissioning group in question. How many more times will Ministers sit and listen to huge concerns from every area of the country about treatment being denied to people in desperate situations before they finally accept that the unprecedented levels of rationing are not the consequence of a series of decisions that are unconnected and remote from Government, but a direct result of the systematic underfunding of the health service for the past seven years?

Daniel Zeichner: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the debates in Westminster Hall and the concerns expressed by Members across the House have been prompted by the fact that the resources for new treatments have not become available in the way that was expected because, as the Secretary of State admitted, although the large amount of rebate from the pharmaceutical sector goes to the NHS, it is not being used specifically for new treatments?

Justin Madders: My hon. Friend is right to express that concern. We do not really know where this rebate has ended up, but all Members know from their personal experiences and our debates that across the board rationing is reaching unprecedented levels, particularly for new and innovative treatments. This is not just a manifestation of the financial straitjacket the health service currently operates in, nor is it just a disaster for individual patients, nor is it just an abrogation of the Minister’s responsibility to uphold the fundamental principles of the NHS; it is also a direct threat to the future prosperity of our life sciences industry. In answer to the Minister’s question about whether we are on the side of patients, I say we absolutely are. Proposed new clause 3(b) makes it very clear that we are on the side of patients, and in particular their ability to access new and innovative treatments.
It is impossible to look at the health of the pharmaceutical sector in this country without considering the central issue of access to treatments. The UK is home to about 4,800 life sciences companies and it continues to have the largest pipeline of new discoveries anywhere in Europe. We are all rightly proud of that. However, the fruits of this innovation are increasingly being enjoyed by patients in other parts of the world before NHS patients can benefit. For every 100 European patients who can access new medicines in the first year they are available, just 15 UK patients have the same access. How can anyone look at that and not say that something is going badly wrong?
As I set out in previous debates on the Bill, a recent report by Breast Cancer Now and Prostate Cancer UK showed that NHS cancer patients are missing out on innovative treatments that are available in any other comparable country to the UK. That should surely shame us all, and it looks as though the situation will get worse. A number of cancer charities estimate that the proposals by NICE to introduce a budget impact threshold could affect one in five new treatments. With one of the options available being a longer period for a phased introduction, the worry is that more patients will be denied access to those critical treatments. I thought that this Bill was meant to be the mechanism by which the cost of drugs would be controlled. Can the Minister explain the flaws in the proposed new pharmaceutical price regulation scheme that make this extra method of cost control necessary?
A debate in this place a few weeks ago drew attention to a number of breast cancer drugs, including Kadcyla, Palbociclib and Perjeta, that might no longer be funded due to changes to the cancer drugs fund. Those are but three examples. Media analysis by the King’s Fund found that there were 225 stories relating to rationing of services in 2016, compared with 144 in 2015 and 86 in 2011. There is clearly a trend developing and we need to reverse it.
We do not have much time today, so I shall draw my remarks to a close by reminding the House that this debate touches on many important issues that are all interlinked—three of them in particular. The first involves securing better value for the NHS; the second involves ensuring full and rapid access to treatments for NHS patients; and the third involves the need to support and promote our life sciences sector. The Government will not achieve any of those aims unless they adopt the right approach to all three. The Bill aims to put in place a system that will deal with the first of those aims, which we support. The amendment that we support today seeks to send a clear message to patients and to industry that the Government consider the other two elements equally important. That is why we are so disappointed that they are not prepared to listen to the overwhelming view expressed in the other place and support that amendment. I urge the Minister to reconsider.

Andrew Murrison: I shall speak briefly to Lords amendment 3, but first I chastise the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), if I may, for his remarks about money. He is right to say that this is all about money, but I seem to remember that less than two years ago, he stood for election on a manifesto that would have had the effect of opposing the money that is currently going into the national health service, so we should not take any lessons from the Labour party on financing the NHS.
The Government are absolutely right to oppose this amendment. It looks a bit like a probing amendment, to be honest, and I am a bit surprised that it has got this far. It would subject this very good Bill to a whole shedload of judicial review. It would be a lawyers’ beanfeast. It bewilders me that people in this House who argue that the NHS needs more money, which it most certainly does, should support such a proposal when all the money would be going into the pockets of lawyers.
NHS England must fund any new drug found to be cost-effective by NICE within 90 days of that approval. This afternoon, the NICE board will approve this new measure, which will establish a budget impact threshold of £20 million. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is right to say that about one in five drugs will probably be within scope of the measure, and that is a cause for concern. Patients in the UK do not enjoy the full range of advanced medicines that are reckoned to be more or less routinely available in countries with which we can reasonably be compared—or if they do, they usually find that they are subject to unwarranted delays before they are treated. That is of course critical in the case of conditions such as cancer, and could well mean the difference between life and death; it will certainly mean a whole load of difference in quality of life. It is vital that we do nothing that would extend that process.
In response to my earlier intervention, the Minister gave me sufficient reassurance that the delay that the measure would introduce would be small, and that this would be an opportunity for NHS England to negotiate a lower price for these very expensive medicines. Indeed, that is the intention. Given that, I am more than happy to support the Government on this. However, any delay at all will send a signal to those in the life sciences sector; it is important that we make it clear that this will not introduce unwarranted delays in the introduction of new medicines, because frankly that would put them off. A lot of worthy work has been done recently, which has involved spending a lot of money, to support a vital part of our economy, and it would be a great pity if anything in the Bill reduced our life sciences sector’s ability to prosper in the years ahead.
It is vital to ensure that we roll out novel medicines much faster. It is wholly unacceptable that many products that are routinely available in western Europe are not available in the UK within a reasonable timeframe. It is hardly surprising that healthcare outcomes for common forms of disease in this country lag behind those in countries such as France, Germany and the Netherlands. I hope that the Bill will go some way to ensuring that we spend our moneys as effectively as possible and will start to narrow that gap, but we must ensure that medicines are rolled out rapidly once they are approved by NICE on a cost-effectiveness basis.

Philippa Whitford: I, too, welcome the principle of the Bill. We have discussed it in a lot of detail as it has gone through Parliament, and the legislative consent motion was passed by the Scottish Parliament last month. I welcome the fact that the Minister listened to our previous discussions, and I therefore welcome Lords amendment 1, which deals with specials—individually produced medicines, usually within dermatology. While the numbers involved may be small, the costs are often eye-watering. In Scotland, that process is controlled through a procurement method, but it was certainly clear that NHS England was simply being ripped off, and I am glad to see that that is being addressed.
I also welcome Lords amendment 6, which will bring in, as I suggested, a consultation on how to maintain the quality of products. We discussed surgical gloves as a perfect example. People talk about quality marks, but they are often simply manufacturing quality marks, not necessarily a mark of suitability for the task. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency could be involved, or there could be some other process, but it is important that we do not drive down quality by trying to drive down price.
The main thing that we are discussing is the Government’s plan to disagree with Lords amendment 3, which would insert a new clause. The NICE board is today discussing this extra layer behind NICE. We are talking about drugs that NICE has already decided are cost-effective, and giving NHS England the ability to delay them further without negotiation. The amount antivirals—such as sofosbuvir for hepatitis C—that hepatologists can prescribe is rationed, even though we know that the most important group to treat are those who are well—not   those who are almost bed-bound or near the end of life with cirrhosis—because they are the ones out in society spreading hepatitis C to other people.
It is important to consider the delay, which has two aspects. The first relates to very expensive drugs, which are usually for rare diseases. Looking back, almost none of the drugs that have got through in recent years would pass the new limit. Secondly, the total of £20 million means that regardless of how effective a drug is, perhaps for a common disease, it would not get through. If someone comes up with a wonder drug for type 2 diabetes, it would hit the slowing mechanism if it cost more than £20 million because of the sheer number of people that we would be dealing with.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) mentioned the impact of our withdrawal from the European Medicines Agency, but while he focused on the impact on the pharmaceutical industry, the impact on the patient is much bigger. Drugs are launched in America and Europe due to the sheer scale of the market, and countries such as Canada and Australia wait longer. The UK will also wait a little longer because we will no longer be part of a market of 500 million people.
The UK may also be seen as a hostile market, because it takes three to five years for cancer drugs to get into the NHS. As other doctors in this place will know, our patients face a delay in accessing new drugs, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Pharmaceutical companies will simply think, “Well, we’re not going to get into the NHS for five years, so let’s go and do Australia and Canada. We’ll come back and deal with the UK later.” That delay to licensing in the UK would be a real problem, and it would extend to Scotland, too, because at the moment licensing is a UK-wide process. The drugs would therefore not be available to us outside the European Medicines Agency.
This issue is also important to UK research. If we fall so far behind that we do not use what is considered standard treatment, we will not be able to take part in trials of standard plus new. There is an absolute need to control the cost of drugs, but perhaps we need different discussions with pharmaceutical companies about how drugs come on. We need something more radical than this to find the sweet spot between the companies getting a return on their money, the NHS controlling the cost and patients getting access.
We also need to think about realistic medicine. Not every patient even wants access to the newest chemotherapy, and perhaps we need some hard discussions, and to be much more open with patients about what a drug will and will not do.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.
The House divided:
Ayes 288, Noes 241.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 1, 2, and 4 to 24 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 1, 2, 18, 19 and 21.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 3;
That James Berry, Judith Cummins, Mr Philip Dunne, Justine Madders, Mark Spencer, Maggie Throup and Dr Philippa Whitford be members of the Committee;
That Mr Philip Dunne be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Guy Opperman.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

NATIONAL CITIZEN SERVICE BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO.2)

Ordered,
That the Order of 16 January 2017 (National Citizen Service Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings in Legislative Grand Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Guy Opperman.)

NATIONAL CITIZEN SERVICE BILL [LORDS]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee.
Clause 1

National Citizen Service Trust

Nicky Morgan: I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 2, insert—
“(c) In carrying out its functions under this Act, the NCS Trust may not act in a manner which has the effect of preventing a young person from working as a volunteer on a heritage railway or tramway as part of a programme which is provided or arranged by the NCS Trust.”
Amendment 1 is the sole amendment to the Bill. Let me say for the benefit of the House, the Clerks and the Whips that I do not intend to push this amendment to a vote. I also want to put on record my full support for the National Citizen Service and for this Bill. It is something that benefits young people enormously. I hope that more and more young people in this country will take part in the NCS. It is about not just how much money we spend on it, but the skills, the experiences, the friendships and the breaking down of barriers. It has been a pleasure to meet NCS groups in my own constituency and to see them in action.
I also want to declare my interest as chair of the all-party group on heritage rail and as a representative—as Member of Parliament for Loughborough—for the Great Central Railway based in my constituency.
I thank both the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), for the conversations that I have had with him about this amendment, and the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work for offering to meet me and Lord Faulkner next week on the substance of this amendment, which is why I will not detain the House for too long this afternoon. I also thank the Health and Safety Executive, who have offered a meeting as well.
There are more than 200 heritage railways in this country, offering volunteering and work experience as well as contributing hugely to our local economies and to the tourism infrastructure in this country. The leading counsel advised the Heritage Railway Association last year that activities involving children are unlawful by virtue of a statue passed as long ago as 1920. The Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 expressly excludes the employment of children in an industrial undertaking. The definition of “industrial undertaking” includes railways and “child” is now defined by section 558 of the Education Act 1996 in effect to mean a person who has not yet reached 16. It had long been assumed that “employment” had its usual meaning of work under a contract of employment, but counsel advised that it extends to include work carried out in a voluntary capacity. The basis for his interpretation is the Education (Work experience) Act 1973. That Act, which is re-enacted as section 560 of the Education Act 1996, provided for children aged 14 to 16 to undertake hands-on work experience as part of their education. Although children undergoing such experience do so voluntarily, without payment, Parliament thought it necessary expressly to disapply the provisions of the  1920 Act to enable work experience to take place. By implication, therefore, it was considered that the 1920 Act otherwise extended to voluntary work performed by children in an industrial undertaking.
In this scenario, an entirely laudable motive in 1920, to stop women, young people and children being exploited, now stops an activity that we as a society and a country deem to be worthy. In my example, that is volunteering by young people on a heritage railway, from which they gain experience of work and working as part of a team, and often they are inspired to take up engineering or other customer service and retail opportunities. It seems that the only way around this anomaly is to change the law, hence the amendment tabled in the other place by Lord Faulkner. I have now picked up the baton in this House.
Although not changing the 1920 Act stops National Citizen Service participants falling foul of that law, this demonstrates why the law should be changed. The amendment in no way cuts across the need to safeguard young people who will be working or volunteering in heritage railways, or perhaps in other industrial heritage settings.

Flick Drummond: We have a huge heritage site in Portsmouth dockyard. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that may be a problem if the Bill is not amended?

Nicky Morgan: A number of heritage sites could fall within the definition of industrial undertaking, such as shipyards and railways. I believe that canals and waterways were mentioned in the debate in the other place. When we see anomalies that are clearly a nonsense in 21st century and we have the opportunity to correct them, this House has a duty to try to do so.
I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendment today or to commit to changing the law, but I will listen with care to his response to this debate and during my meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work next week. I hope that in due course the House can resolve the legal logjam. Those of us who want young people to be able to volunteer in industrial undertakings and gain vital skills will continue to press the case.

John Bercow: The question is that the amendment be made—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the flickering lights are an effect of the right hon. Lady’s oration—it would be uncharitable of me to think so—or of my standing up. Who knows?

David Nuttall: I rise briefly to support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), and I thank her very much for the work she does for the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail.
Bury is home to the East Lancashire railway. We are not connected to the railway in any other way, but we do have what I think is the best heritage railway in the country—[Interruption.] I may have started a separate debate on that. Suffice it to say that the railway is an enormous attraction to the town. People come from all over to take part in the special activities that are run, particularly at weekends. The railway is well known in the town as a magnet for tourists and rail enthusiasts.
I was particularly concerned when I saw the amendment because, to be honest, I was not aware that there would be any problem. I have visited—on two occasions last year, if I recall correctly—young people taking part in the National Citizen Service. They were taking part in a “Dragons’ Den”-type exercise, bidding for funds to carry out good work in the community. I was on the panel with others, listening to the bids, which the young people put forward very professionally. It never occurred to me that young people would not be able to be placed with the East Lancs railway, which is a charity and one of the largest volunteer groups in Bury.
I can understand why the legislation to protect women and young people from dangerous activities was passed back in 1920. I think we can forget the part about women nowadays, because we send women into active service and there is no reason why they should be protected in this respect; they can look after themselves. However, I do accept that young people need protection. I am not trying to suggest that they do not. I also accept that there are aspects of the railway that young people would need special supervision for, but I am sure that that could be provided for in the National Citizen Service scheme and in the risk assessment that the service undertakes for all placements.
I particularly want to put on the record the fact that a wide variety of tasks can be undertaken on heritage railways, and in no way can they all be described as dangerous. There are all sorts of administrative and clerical roles. One only has to look at the long list of tasks undertaken by a heritage railway to see that there is plenty of scope for a young person or a group of young people who are interested in serving the community to get involved. That is particularly important in Bury. The East Lancs railway has a retail outlet, so there are sales and retail opportunities. There is also work in customer care and looking after the facilities at the various stations along the line.
We may be unnecessarily limiting the opportunities for young people. I am sure that is not the intention behind the Bill, which is laudable in all other respects. The fact that it has gone through all its stages with so little controversy demonstrates that, but I would not want the East Lancs Railway to be disadvantaged in any way as a result of a hangover from the 1920s. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend and give some thought to how we can make it crystal clear that charities and organisations that run heritage railways are not disadvantaged.

Rob Wilson: I do hope the lights stay on, because I am not expecting a highly charged debate this afternoon—boom, boom!
Anyway, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) for her contribution, for her fantastic support for the NCS, and for raising this issue. Like Lord Ashton in the other place, I do not want there to be any barriers to young people volunteering their time on heritage railways or, indeed, in other appropriate environments.
NCS participants often choose to dedicate their social action project to a cause that is important to them in the community. If they wanted to work, for example,  on the Great Central railway—an excellent heritage railway, as Members know, in my right hon. Friend’s constituency—nothing should unreasonably prevent them from doing exactly that. Health and safety law must, of course, be adhered to so that young people are properly looked after and risks are managed. That, of course, is sensible.
My Department has spoken with the Office of Rail and Road, which is responsible for the regulation of heritage railways. It confirms that there is a long-standing role for those under school leaving age to work on such systems in the heritage sector, and I know my right hon. Friend has a series of meetings to confirm with the ORR and others whether that is the right way to go.
There is a clear benefit to young people in being able to take part in such volunteering activities: it gives them practical and social skills, develops a sense of community and social engagement, and equips them with a formative degree of knowledge of safety and risk management.
General health and safety policy makes specific provision for the assessment and management of risks for young workers. We would, of course, expect the 1920 Act to be applied and enforced practically, sensibly and in the public interest. For railways that are appropriately managing volunteer work done by young people, and otherwise complying with health and safety law, there is a relatively low risk of action against them in practice. If there were evidence of poor supervision or exposure to risk, the ORR would have the usual range of enforcement powers to deploy. Those range from verbal and written advice to improvement notices, prohibition notices and prosecution for the most serious breaches of the law.
Modifying the law in this area would carry a risk that would need to be investigated thoroughly. The NCS Bill is a focused piece of legislation, as my right hon. Friend realises, and is drafted to put the NCS Trust on a more accountable footing. It is a governance Bill working alongside the draft royal charter, so it is not the place to change the law on the health and safety of young volunteers. Moreover, the 1920 Act concerns those under 16, and the vast majority of NCS participants are 16 or over, so they are not the concern of the Bill.
With that reassurance from the ORR, I know that my right hon. Friend will withdraw her amendment.

Nicky Morgan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow: I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motion, copies of which will be available shortly in the Vote Office and will be distributed by Doorkeepers.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—

John Bercow: I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified the following provisions of the National Citizen Service Bill [Lords] as relating  exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence: clauses 1 to 8 of and schedule 1 to the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee.
For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(4), I have certified the following amendment made to the Bill since Second Reading as relating exclusively to England and Wales: amendment 1 to clause 13 made in the Public Bill Committee.
Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office. Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) is nodding sagaciously along with me as I go—he is obviously very conversant with the details of this procedure, and I would expect nothing less. Does the Minister intend to move a consent motion?

Rob Wilson: indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)).
[Natascha Engel in the Chair]

Natascha Engel: I remind hon. Members that if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(2)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses and schedule to the National Citizen Service Bill [Lords] and the certified amendment made to the Bill:
Clauses and schedules certified under SO No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 1 to 8 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee (Bill 130).
Amendment certified under SO No. 83L(4) as relating exclusively to England
Amendment 1 made in the Public Bill Committee.—(Mr Rob Wilson.)
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Third Reading

Rob Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am absolutely delighted to speak at this historic moment for the National Citizen Service. Passing the National Citizen Service Bill is our opportunity to embed years of hard work by delivering a programme that is cherished by so many young people. Today is the culmination of the work and ideas that have gone into the Bill from both Houses and from outside Parliament.
I thank the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) and the Opposition for their approach to the Bill. They have been consistently supportive, and in our debates they have demonstrated a desire to make the NCS the best it can be. The unity of the House has made a powerful statement that the NCS is here to stay. I have welcomed ideas and questions, and I think we have a stronger Bill because of that.
In particular, our discussions have focused on social integration. The importance that Members from across the House have placed on social integration is absolutely justified. People from different backgrounds mixing, working together and learning about each other is an essential part of the NCS. It is part of what makes it distinct as a programme, and why it has been such a valuable addition to national life.
I have always shared the view that social integration is central to the aims of the NCS, so I am pleased that we were able to agree about how to strengthen the language in the draft royal charter. We intend to add social integration to article 3.4 of the charter, which already mentions social cohesion. By adding social integration to the objectives, we will embed it firmly in the NCS Trust’s constitution.
We have also covered the issue of the role of young people in the leadership of the NCS. The NCS Trust needs the perspective of young people if it is to provide an appealing, quality experience. As I said in Committee, 19 regional youth boards and one national youth board bring young people’s perspective to the leadership of the NCS. The network of 120 young leaders provides another sounding board. I thank the hon. Member for Croydon North for meeting me to discuss those and other points. In the light of those constructive discussions, we have agreed with the NCS Trust that it will have a representative from its youth board at all normal main board meetings with a standing agenda item. The Government will also ensure that the recruitment process for board members will encourage young people to apply. With those commitments, I hope we now have a Bill that we can all firmly support.
It is not too ambitious to say that we want the NCS to become a national institution—a recognised and valid scheme, delivered by a respected and trusted organisation. With royal charter status and the passage of the Bill, the NCS Trust can be that organisation, and we have set our goals for the programme so that hundreds of thousands more young people can be sure of the opportunities on offer.
However, we know that there is still much more to do. For example, I agree with the recent recommendations of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee on strengthening the governance, transparency and efficiency of the NCS. That is not new to us. Improving those aspects of the programme was one of the reasons we started to develop the Bill more than a year ago. It is precisely because the NCS is so valuable, both to young people and the nation as a whole, that we must ensure that the taxpayer has complete confidence in the way it is managed, what the NCS Trust does and how it spends public money. It is because of our ambition for the programme that I want to ensure it is delivered to the highest possible standards.
The royal charter gives the NCS Trust a strong remit and sets governance arrangements that provide the right balance between necessary Government involvement and the freedom to get on with the job. The Bill can give Parliament confidence in the work of the trust. The business plan and the reporting requirements will provide transparency on key areas of performance. We therefore have an arrangement that works for Government, for Parliament and for the NCS Trust.

Justin Tomlinson: It was a great honour to be part of the Bill Committee that saw  the Bill through. I think that it strikes the right balance between accountability and trusting the NCS, with its young leaders, to deliver a programme that is relevant. Having made numerous visits to see the transformational opportunities it offers to young people, I believe it is absolutely right that we strike that balance.

Rob Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend for the part he has played in making the Bill the great success it is going to be and for his keen interest in the NCS in his Swindon constituency. He is right to seek assurances about the quality, not just the quantity, of what the NCS is providing and confirmation that young leaders will have the chance to be involved in the future.
The governance arrangements, together with the new projections for demand and the associated funding that I announced in January, are part of an ambitious yet realistic plan for the NCS. We want the NCS to grow, driven by demand from young people; we want it to provide the same quality experience to every young person as it grows; and we want it to provide value for money and transparency for the taxpayer.
I thank everybody who has helped to develop and shape the Bill and the charter, all Members of the House who have spoken in the debates, members of the Public Bill Committee, and the staff and board of the NCS Trust. In particular, I thank the chairman, Stephen Greene, who has taken the NCS Trust from its beginnings to the brink of being a national institution. That is quite a journey and an impressive achievement by anyone’s measure.
As we speak, the chairman, the board and the staff of the NCS Trust are working hard to recruit this summer’s participants. We in this House can support them and play our part in that. I ask all Members to keep supporting the NCS in their constituencies—visit it, take part in it and talk about the impact it is having on young people. By raising its profile, we can help to make the NCS the household name it deserves to be, so that hundreds of thousands more young people know about it and benefit from it.
I pay tribute to the many organisations that deliver the NCS and those in the wider youth sector who work alongside it. The scouts, the guides, the Duke of Edinburgh’s award, cadet forces and too many others to name are all part of our vision for a rich and rewarding journey of experiences that enables young people to develop to their full potential. The NCS can be one common thread in that journey—a shared opportunity in a shared society.
It is not often that we have the opportunity to establish a new part of national life, a new element of being a citizen in our country. This is one of those opportunities. It is the opportunity to secure something that is already changing lives and that has the potential to change many more.
Of course there is much more work to do to grow the NCS and to make it a rite of passage, but today we can take a vital step in the right direction, for today we have a clear statement that working together with people from different backgrounds, in the service of a shared society, should be a normal part of growing up. Today we have before us a Bill that will help to secure the investment of millions more hours of volunteering by  young people in local communities, helping those who most need it. Today, we look to the future and say to young people, “We want to invest in you. We want to give you the opportunity to reach your potential.” This Government invest in our young people. More importantly, we believe in our young people.

Steve Reed: I will start by returning the compliments paid to me by the Minister. I and my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench are grateful to him for the consensual way in which he has dealt with the Bill. That is important to the future of the National Citizen Service, and to the people from all parties and none who have devoted a considerable amount of time to getting the organisation off the ground. That does not mean to say I do not have comments to make about how it is being run, particularly in the light of the Public Accounts Committee report published this week, but those comments should not be misinterpreted as a lack of support for the organisation or for the consensual way in which the Minister has dealt with this matter. It has been an enormous pleasure to visit NCS groups in my constituency. I have seen the positive difference that they are making to young people in Croydon North, as well as to young people across the rest of the country.
The Bill sets up a royal charter that provides a statutory underpinning to the NCS. It does not set up the NCS, because it already exists. It does not agree funding levels, as they are decided by the Government in their spending review. Labour supports the Bill because it believes the NSC has a great deal to offer young people across our country. We want the stronger governance the royal charter will provide, particularly following the concerns about governance, oversight, financial performance and value for money—all issues that we raised in previous stages, but which the Public Accounts Committee report highlighted in flashing lights.
The organisation is due to receive over £1.5 billion of public funding at a time when other youth services up and down the country have lost significant levels of funding. It is important, when so much money goes to any service, that the Government can demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that every penny of public money handed to the NCS is better spent there than every penny cut from thousands of other youth organisations that were also doing good work, many with some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged young people in the country. I will not ask the Minister to respond in detail to every point raised by the PAC, but I would be grateful if he wrote to me and responded to some of the issues I will raise this afternoon.
I agree with the Minister that it is vital that this organisation, like every other publicly funded body, delivers and demonstrates the highest possible level of value for money. The PAC found that the
“Department cannot justify the seemingly high cost per participant of the NCS”.
Given the significant amount of further money pledged to the NCS, that will require a full response in due course from the Minister. The report highlights what appear to be alarmingly high costs per participant: £1,863 per participant is very high, particularly since other funding targeted at the most vulnerable young people has been reduced.

Rob Wilson: I would just like to place on record my absolute determination to see a concerted effort to reduce the cost per unit of the NCS bill. We have been looking at that for some time. One reason for the Bill is to make the NCS much more transparent and accountable in line with other organisations that receive public money.

Steve Reed: I thank the Minister for those assurances. It is important to put our concerns on the record following the PAC report. I fully understand that he will need some time to look at the report in detail to provide the reassurances that the House and the public will be looking for following its publication. The organisation has declared its intention to reduce spending per participant by about £200, which is significant. It is important to know how savings on this scale can be achieved while maintaining the quality of the service and support it provides.
Concerns, which the PAC report repeated, were raised that the full value of participation targets is not yet being realised. The Government reduced their original targets for the number of young people on the scheme by a third—from 360,000 by 2020, to 247,000. With such a dramatic downward shift, and given the funding going into the organisation, assurances will need to be given that the target can be achieved and that there will be no further downward shift.
Given that local authorities and schools are already active on the ground and know their communities, would Ministers be prepared to reconsider their involvement in delivering the service? At an earlier stage, the relationship was different, and although they still have a role with the NCS perhaps it needs to be reviewed to ensure their full integration into the organisation’s delivery of its services to young people.
The PAC report was critical of the Cabinet Office’s setting up of the trust without appropriate governance arrangements, but I understand that the royal charter to be established will put a governance framework in place. We argued at previous stages that there should be a role for young people in running the trust. I am grateful to the Minister and welcome the comments he made in opening about giving young people a clearer and more direct role on the trust board.
User involvement ensures that organisations remain focused on the needs of their users and do not slip into focusing too much on the needs of the provider. I am pleased to see another good way of making sure that this Government body remains appealing to young people, who will feel they have considerable say in the organisation. I look forward to seeing how the amendment will appear in the royal charter.
I welcome the Minister’s comments on social integration, about which points have been made not just by me but by many of the organisations involved in delivering the NCS. There is broad support among Members and across the sector for the NCS’s important work in encouraging social integration. Bringing together young people from different backgrounds broadens their understanding of their own country and the community of which they form a part, and it helps to build a sense of shared nationhood, which is very important for the future of our country.
It is particularly important that young people from more socially excluded and deprived backgrounds, who  might be harder to engage, are fully represented in all the work the NCS does. With the focus on driving up participation, the NCS must not go only for those young people who are easier to engage but who might be in less need of its NCS support than young people from more excluded backgrounds. I know that the Minister shares my view, and I look forward to seeing what further focus is placed on the NCS to ensure that targets are met throughout the project’s delivery.
The internal evaluation of the NCS published last week showed the benefits of the scheme, but the finding that three months after completion of the spring NCS programme there had been no impact on volunteering was of concern. I hope that the Minister will look into that. Getting young people involved in volunteering is one of the key benefits of the NCS, so we need to do more to encourage those who want to give something back to their community and to ensure that they have that chance.
It is very welcome that the Government are going ahead with the youth social action review, whose chairman was named just this week. We welcome the appointment of Steve Holliday and look forward to hearing his recommendations by October.

Susan Elan Jones: My hon. Friend mentions the full time social action review. Does he share the hope of many of us that the Government will look at full-time volunteering and come up with as many creative ideas as possible?

Steve Reed: Absolutely. It is important that the Government identify and try to remove possible barriers to involvement in full-time volunteering. We hope that the review led by Steve Holliday will produce some proposals.
Let me reassure the House that the points that my colleagues and I have raised are intended to help the NCS to develop and improve. We want it to succeed. We believe in the young people of this country, and we believe that the NCS can have, and is having, a real impact on those who take part in its programmes. It builds their confidence, exposes them to other young people from different backgrounds, builds valuable life skills, and strengthens their understanding of the community and what it means to be part of it. However, we also believe in value for money. There clearly needs to be a tighter grip. Given that so many cuts are now affecting young people, the NCS needs to succeed for every young person in the country.
I hope that the Bill, and the royal charter it establishes, will enable the NCS to move forward, and will help young people throughout the country to achieve their potential and become the very best they can be.

Flick Drummond: It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill. I should declare an interest, having taken part in a project organised by an NCS partner in Portsmouth: the Pompey in the Community team, led by Clare Martin and James Shannon at Portsmouth football club. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who is no longer in the Chamber, and like, I suspect, many other Members of Parliament, I was a “dragon” in the “Dragons’ Den” event organised for young people to pitch their ideas for social action projects to be run as part of the scheme.  There were some brilliant ideas, and the service has led to the delivery by young people of some great projects in Portsmouth.
I have no doubt that the establishment of a royal charter body is the right way to develop the NCS. It will give the organisation a strong stature in the eyes of the public, and will help to define its independence. The intention is not to allow it to bully or dominate other organisations in the voluntary sector; it is to ensure that a public body, spending large amounts of public money, is properly incorporated. This is not a slight on community interest companies—I have the pleasure of working with several CICs, and I am a firm supporter of that business model—but a move to put the NCS on a firmer footing in view of its considerable public responsibilities. The change will improve our oversight of the organisation, and will allow us to measure it against some of the concerns expressed in the Public Accounts Committee report.
Portsmouth is a compact and diverse city, so we can draw on a real mix of people from a wide variety of backgrounds. It will be vital nationally for the NCS to be able to draw people together from across the spectrum. Getting hold of young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, is a challenge, but we are achieving it in Portsmouth. That is one of the reasons I think the service is so successful. Our target is 350 this year, and we already have 171 signed up. Ours is a compact city, and people have to work together wherever they come from.
While I recognise that some concerns have been expressed about clause 9 and the involvement of HMRC, I see no great difficulty with it. Being given their national insurance details by HMRC at the age of 16 feels like a rite of passage for many young people, and it makes sense to include information about the NCS at the same time. They should also be getting the message via their schools, and I am sure that every MP can help in that regard. No one would expect the main means of learning about the NCS to come in a buff envelope with the national insurance card, but that is an additional means of engaging young people with projects that can change their lives and open the door to the world of responsibility and adulthood.
I hope that the annual report from the trust will contain some commentary on how it ensures the integrity of its data processing. That should relate not just to its relationship with HMRC, but to all sources of personal data collected and held by the NCS and its partners.
The key issues in the Bill that still give rise to concern involve the measuring of performance and value for money. As we heard from the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), that concern arose from the PAC report. We look forward to scrutinising the business plan annually, and to seeing how the performance measures up. There must be no repeat of the unfilled places problem identified in the PAC report. We already know that 90% of the young people who are engaging with the service currently see the value of it, but I would particularly like to see how many continue to volunteer, perhaps even until the age of 21.
The challenge of the NCS will be to demonstrate the follow-on benefits of it as people get further into adulthood. We will therefore want to see in the annual reporting  what the sustained impact is at age 21. This Bill reflects a desire shared in all parts of the House to help young people develop the skills they will need in adulthood, connecting them with parts of society with which they might not otherwise engage.
I have followed the debates about this Bill and its measures with interest, and I feel we have before us a Bill that should command the confidence of Members and the wider public, and I look forward to it becoming law in due course.

Rob Wilson: With the leave of the House, I will take a couple of minutes to try to answer some of the questions asked, to save me sending a letter or two further down the line. I thank the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) for his comments and concerns, and for his support for the NCS.
On the Public Accounts Committee report that came out earlier this week, it is important to realise that the NCS delivers very positive outcomes and, by and large, very good value for money, as independent evaluations have shown. Detailed evaluations are conducted annually about the previous programme, and they are showing good value for money.
The programme has expanded extremely rapidly. As part of that rapid change it is important to acknowledge the need for change, which is precisely why we have brought forward this Bill, and indeed the royal charter. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are creating a much more robust framework for the NCS and the NCS Trust, as well as a new set of targets, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The trust is going to be accountable to Parliament, which is very important, and the programme will be delivered efficiently, effectively and transparently, and these changes will help the trust to continue delivering the outcomes that make the NCS not just a justifiable programme but an important, often life-changing experience for young people.
We are working closely with the trust to ensure that new contracts due in 2018 deliver fully on value for money. The trust has undertaken a number of pathfinder exercises to look at how the NCS is delivered, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will continue to scrutinise the NCS Trust’s budgets. As I have said, I am determined to take concerted action to make sure we drive down costs and ensure value for money.
Schools and local authorities play a central role in promoting the NCS, and we will publish new guidance for both groups on royal assent.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the new review under Steve Holliday. He brings a wealth of knowledge and experience of young people and skills—and the right experience—to this role, and I will work with him to secure a panel of experts from the public, private and voluntary sectors to make sure we have the right experience and knowledge to deliver what I hope will be a great report.
Finally, on public sector standards, as an independent community interest company the NCS Trust was not required to comply with public sector expectations on standards and financial reporting, but once the trust has transitioned to a royal charter body it will be required to produce a business plan at the start of each year, and produce annual accounts and annual reports  for Parliament. That will create much more transparency and better accountability, which is why we have the NCS Bill.
I hope that answers the majority of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. If there are any left unanswered, I will write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS

[Relevant Documents: Report of the House of Commons Commission, Lay Members of the Committee on Standards: Nomination of Candidates, HC 1073.]

Tom Brake: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 149A, Tammy Banks, Rita Dexter and Paul Thorogood be appointed as lay members of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years from 31 March 2017.
I am very happy to be standing in for the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) today. The motion proposes the appointment of three lay members to the Committee on Standards to replace the three appointed at the end of 2012 when we first changed the membership of the Committee to include people from outside Parliament. This was a radical reform at the time, and it is greatly to the credit of the three members appointed then—Sharon Darcy, Peter Jinman and Walter Rader—that the motion today is seen as business as usual. I would like to express the thanks of the House of Commons Commission—and, I am sure, of the whole House—to Sharon, Peter and Walter for their dedication to their role and for the contribution they have made to increasing the rigour and public profile of the standards system in the House.
The terms of office of those three original lay members come to an end on 30 March this year, so last summer the Commission started the recruitment process to identify their replacements. We were keen that there should not be a gap in membership and I am glad that by holding this debate today we will achieve that aim. The three names recommended to the House in the motion were chosen as the result of a fair and open competition, as required under the Standing Order. The Commission’s report sets this out in more detail for those who are interested. I would like to thank the recruitment panel for all its work in sifting the many applications and putting forward three excellent candidates.
Turning briefly to those candidates, I am sure the House will agree that they will increase diversity on the Standards Committee and that they will bring a broad range of insights and experience to their work on the Committee. Tammy Banks is the chief executive of Yorkshire and Humberside Circles of Support and Accountability, a charity based in York. Rita Dexter has had a lifetime of service in local government and recently retired as deputy commissioner of the London Fire Brigade. Paul Thorogood is the chief executive officer of the Football Foundation. Further biographical details of all the candidates are published in the Commission’s report for the information of the House and beyond.
The motion proposes that the three candidates be appointed for six years, which is the maximum term allowed under the Standing Order. This is to allow continuity of service and experience on the Committee and to stagger the departure dates of the seven lay members taken as a whole. I am sure that other Members will join me in wishing the new lay members well in their new role. I ask the House to agree to the motion for the appointments.

Kevin Barron: As Chair of the Committee on Standards, I would like to speak briefly to support the motion today. As part of my role as Chair, I was a member of the recruitment panel to select the candidates for the lay member posts. The field of potential members was exceptionally strong, and I am sure that the three names that emerged from it will add great value to the work of the Committee. I look forward to welcoming Tammy, Rita and Paul to their new posts if the House passes the motion today.
I would also like to express the thanks of the Committee—and indeed of myself personally—to three of the current lay members, Sharon Darcy, Peter Jinman and Walter Rader, who leave us at the end of the month. I believe that they are the first lay members ever to be appointed to a parliamentary Committee, although we now have a total of seven such members. They had the difficult task of taking on and shaping a completely new role at the start of 2013, and doing so at a time when I think it is fair to say that the standards system in the House was not held in high regard.
Sharon, Peter and Walter have brought to their role a deep experience of other regulatory regimes and a determination to improve the system in the House. During their time in post, they have achieved a great deal. They have made a full contribution to all reports and discussions in Committee, much to the improvement of our decisions and processes. They have also encouraged us to look beyond our bread-and-butter disciplinary cases and think about how we can change the culture of standards in the Commons and engage the public more in our work. I know that all three of the departing lay members think there is still more to be done, but I hope that they also have a sense of achievement because of the changes they have brought about in the last four years. They leave a legacy that I am sure will be picked up and pursued by all colleagues on the Standards Committee as we go forward.

Tommy Sheppard: I rise briefly to associate myself with the comments already made. I have been a member of the Committee on Standards for—I cannot believe that I can say this—almost two years, and I want to pay tribute to our lay colleagues who are retiring. I have seen at first-hand how they have brought intelligence and, most of all, perspective to our debates. They have allowed us to consider things and arrive at a view that would have been different had they not been present. Members of this House can sometimes be so embroiled in something that we are unable to rise above it and see ourselves as others would see us. That is the contribution that the lay members have made. I concur with the appointment of the new lay members and look forward to working with them.
Question put and agreed to.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Guy Opperman.)
Question agreed to.

PETITION - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1995 AND 2011 PENSION ACTS

Nick Smith: I present this petition from those in Blaenau Gwent who are facing hardship and need a better deal from this Government. Meeting women up and down my borough, it is clear that pension changes are disproportionately affecting working-class women—women who may have started work as young as 15, women with no private pension to fall back on, and women who are likely to be in manual trades, which are hard to keep up in later years. Their stories are pointed, powerful and painful. Those women are known throughout the country as the WASPI women, and they deserve our support.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Blaenau Gwent,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002027]

PETITION - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1995 AND 2011 PENSIONS ACTS

Bill Cash: I have two petitions, the first of which is a petition signed by many residents of the Stone constituency in relation to the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Stone,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the   burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P002028]

PETITION - NO. 31 BUS SERVICE TO CHEADLE FROM HANLEY

Bill Cash: My second petition relates to the No. 31 bus service to Cheadle from Hanley in Stoke-on-Trent and has also been signed by a significant number of my constituents.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the constituency of Stone in Staffordshire,
Declares that the No. 31 bus service to Cheadle from Hanley should not be withdrawn.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the No.31 bus service to Cheadle from Hanley is not withdrawn.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P002029]

Parental Alienation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Guy Opperman.)

Simon Danczuk: I have spent much of my time in this place investigating and exposing allegations of child sexual abuse. Politicians, the media and the state were too slow to highlight such abuse.
Parental alienation is another form of child abuse that has gone both unreported and under-discussed. Such abuse is not properly recognised by the United Kingdom Government. While Westminster remains silent on the issue, parents and children suffer. The Government and the courts need to recognise parental alienation as a form of emotional abuse, and as such they need to step up efforts to prevent it and, in some circumstances, punish perpetrators.
Sadly, parental alienation is rarely talked about in Parliament. I do not believe there has previously been a debate on it in this place, and only eight questions have been asked about it since I entered the House in 2010. I hope to use this debate to raise awareness and start a discussion about parental alienation.
I attest that I come to this topic not as an expert in the subject but as someone with experience of parental alienation. My mother could be accused of such a thing. When my parents separated when I was five, my mother portrayed my father, perhaps on occasion faithfully, in a very poor light. In contrast, my father would refuse to say anything bad about my mother.
I have some experience that I think is worth sharing but, for those who do not have first-hand experience of parental alienation, I will explain what is meant by the term. Parental alienation is the deliberate manipulation of a child by one parent against the other parent. Often it occurs after a couple have separated. According to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, parental alienation is responsible for some 80% of the most difficult cases that come before the family courts. CAFCASS also estimates that 5% of children involved in divorce or separation will experience some level of parental alienation. However, that figure seems incredibly low for what I believe to be a more widespread problem.
Despite those shocking statistics, the United Kingdom lags behind many other countries across the world in addressing the issue. Parental alienation is not recognised in the lower courts and, although the higher courts acknowledge that parental alienation occurs, many family rights campaigners feel the courts do nothing about it. Although there have been small steps in the right direction, progress in the UK has been far too slow.
In part, the controversy is down to parental alienation syndrome, a hotly contested psychological condition. The syndrome is not recognised by the World Health Organisation and has been tossed out by some child abuse experts as “junk science.” I will not get into the nitty-gritty of that psychological debate, which is for specialists to discuss, but it does not matter whether we label parental alienation as a syndrome, because it is still a problem for families.

Suella Fernandes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the issue. Does he agree with Mr Justice Munby, as he then was—he is  now president of the family division of the High Court and has judged many family cases involving contact disputes—that the cause of these problems is delay in the court system, the failure of the courts to challenge groundless allegations against non-resident fathers and the failure of the courts to get to grips with defiance of contact orders and child arrangement orders and to properly enforce against breach? Does he agree that that is the core of some of the problems?

Simon Danczuk: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I know that she has good knowledge of these issues from her time before coming to this place. She makes an extremely good point, which adds to the discussion and debate that I hope we will continue to have on this issue.
I am sure we would all agree that it is not normal for a child, in a short space of time, to go from loving a parent to seeing them as an object of hate. As Dr Amy Baker, a developmental psychologist who has written extensively on parental alienation, has said:
“Children do not typically reject a parent, even a relatively bad one, unless they have been manipulated to do so.”
Manipulation can take various forms, and some acts may even be unconscious. For example, if a mother is anxious about their child going to visit their father, the child may pick up on that and begin, for perhaps no other reason, to worry themselves. The odd comment in front of the children about the other parent’s financial situation or inability to stick with plans is another mild form of parental alienation. Although such actions are unlikely to have a serious impact, it is none the less worth keeping in mind that children are very impressionable and that parents must watch what they say around them.
In more destructive cases, the manipulation takes a very nasty form. The manipulator can poison the child’s mind with biased accounts of why the marriage failed or the unpleasant details of the divorce settlement. In the most severe circumstances, a parent may restrict access time to the other parent so that a proper relationship cannot be maintained. That type of parental behaviour can result in the child being uncharacteristically rude to the target parent, refusing to see them and even making serious but false allegations against their mum or dad; often it is carried out by parents seeking revenge against their former partner, with the children maliciously used as a weapon in the battle.
For the target parent the sense of loss and pain can be unimaginable. For the children, who are innocent bystanders, the effects in the present and the long term can only be negative. We know from evidence that bad relationships within families are bad for child development. Separation already has its difficulties, but if it is marred by manipulation and hostility, that will undoubtedly impair a child’s mental health, emotional wellbeing and academic attainment. Indeed, it is likely that a child who is manipulated against one of their parents will engage in such practices when they grow up and have children of their own. I must say that I have had to work at avoiding being negative in conversation with my two youngest children since my second marriage broke down. Thankfully, my second wife Karen and I, for all our differences, work really hard at putting our children’s  emotions first. That is down to good and regular communication, but I can understand how a parent can slip into the milder forms of parental alienation, which highlights the need to raise awareness.
Since this debate was announced, I have received a number of emails from victims of parental alienation, and I am sure that after this evening I will receive more. Of course, it would be unwise to take those accounts completely at face value, as cases are often complex and there are always two sides to any story. However, I can believe that many of the tales that have been recounted are experienced by many parents up and down the country. Last month, when I tweeted an article about parental alienation, I was surprised by the response I received. This is an issue that most people outside Westminster are aware of, although they may well not use the term “parental alienation”. A few of those who got in touch said that they would be watching this debate, and I would like to thank them for sharing their experiences and urge them to share them with their Member of Parliament.
I would like to make a few observations before I share some of the more high-profile cases that have been reported on. First, many fathers’ rights campaign groups have rightly been campaigning on this issue for many years—understandably so, given the trauma that many fathers have to go through to gain access to their children after separation. However, it is important to note that mothers can be the victims of parental alienation as well as the perpetrators. Additionally, the manipulation may not come from the parent who has custody over the child—indeed, a mother or father who sees their child only at weekends could use that limited contact time to poison the mind of their child.
We know that the problem affects many families, so it is surprising that there are so few documented accounts. Last year, the BBC’s “Victoria Derbyshire” show highlighted the case of a girl whose father manipulated her against her mother. Emma—not her real name—went to live with her dad two years after her parents separated. He deliberately blocked her and her siblings from seeing their mother. In front of the children, the father blamed the mother for the breakdown of the family. He told them that their mother was a liar and a drunk, and that she was not interested in seeing them and no longer loved them. Emma was subject to this abuse for five years, but was none the wiser. As she told the BBC:
“With me only being nine, to the age of twelve, I didn’t know”
better. Emma’s father blocked her attempts to see her mother, until she eventually ran away. She managed to reach her aunt’s home and call her mum for the first time in years. She now lives with her mother and has cut all ties with her father, and she questions how he can look after children.
Although the children are often unware of the abuse they are being subjected to, the parent being vilified is all too aware. The case of Miriam—again, not her real name—highlights the suffering experienced by such a parent. Her case is particularly harrowing given the serious sexual allegations made against her by her son, after her ex-husband told her that she would never see her child again. Miriam denied the accusations and they have since been dismissed by the court, yet she did not see her son for 592 days, and he will now consent to seeing her only under supervision, every six  weeks. She is losing hope that she will ever have a meaningful relationship with her child again. She told The Guardian:
“My son has been so severely manipulated by his father that it may not be until he has his own children that he comes back to me.”
I know of one mother who had her children steal jewellery and underwear from the separated father’s home. She encouraged them to write graffiti at his house, and even had them put hair removal cream in his shampoo bottles. Those are some of the more extreme examples of parental alienation.
What can we do going forward? It seems that there is a lack of information out there about parental alienation in the United Kingdom, so there needs to be further investigation. Parental alienation needs greater recognition by the UK Government, and the family courts need to record it as a specific issue. Without data about the scale of the problem, it is difficult to recommend a solution, let alone monitor the impact of any measures the Government might decide to introduce. When considering the matter, the Government should consider a variety of measures ranging from investing in initiatives to prevent or stop this form of abuse in its early stages to programmes to support victims, as well as changes in legislation to ensure that in the most extreme circumstances parents who abuse their children in this way are punished.
Investment in early prevention efforts must be prioritised, and better guidance must be given to courts, social workers and all those who have children under their duty of care. The Government have already funded a CAFCASS pilot scheme to provide therapeutic programs relating to parental alienation. I am keen to hear from the Minister how that pilot went and whether the Government plan to continue and expand the programme. I urge the Government to take on board the concerns of Joanna Abrahams, the head of family law at Setfords Solicitors, who has expressed concerns that cuts to legal aid will prevent parents from accessing justice on this issue.
Parental alienation is recognised in the US and Canada, it is illegal in Brazil and Mexico, and in Italy parents who manipulate their child can be fined. It is worth the Government exploring different models such as those to see how best practice can be adopted here in the UK; I hope the Minister will liaise with his counterparts in those countries.
Parental alienation has a serious impact on our children. It is a crying shame that this form of child abuse all too often goes unrecognised and unreported. Parental alienation warrants further debate in Parliament, and we then need the Government to take further action. One of the most immediate and simplest ways in which we can improve the situation is to raise awareness and make both parents conscious of the damage that parental alienation can do to their children. We can all help to raise awareness by doing more next month on 25 April, when we mark Parental Alienation Awareness Day.

Oliver Heald: First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this debate and on his interesting and thoughtful contribution? It is right to say at the outset that the Government are considering family justice matters at the moment with a view to  having a Green Paper later this year. With that in mind, he has highlighted an important concern. I was sorry to hear of his own personal experience of parental alienation, which must make this an issue of particular concern to him, and the House will have been moved by that.
I am sure that everyone in the House will agree that parental separation is one of the most traumatic events for a family. It affects both the child and the parents. Many separated parents do manage to overcome that agony of separation and work out child arrangements in a way that values and encourages the ongoing involvement of each other, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned his own experience of doing that. Other parents, for a variety of reasons, find themselves in conflict with each other when faced with the need to make important decisions together about the future of themselves and their children. All too often, the needs of the children are lost in that emotional turmoil.
The breakdown of a relationship presents its own difficulties for children. The emotional upheaval of separation is made worse when one parent—more commonly, but not always, the parent with whom the child resides—seeks to turn the child against the other parent and make them appear anxious in their presence. Although there is no generally recognised syndrome—as the hon. Gentleman called it—of parental alienation in this jurisdiction, it does not mean that the problem is unrecognised by the family justice system. What matters is not whether parental alienation is a syndrome, but what the impact is on the child. The Government are aware of the difficulties that a parent can face when the other parent seeks to alienate them from their child’s life, and I am sure that hon. Members know that from their own constituency work, because it is a point that comes up in surgeries. Such behaviour can never be acceptable and it has a traumatic effect. Like domestic abuse, it can intensify emotional harm to children. However, I can assure hon. Members that the law takes the matter seriously. There are mechanisms in place robustly to address parental alienation when it features in child arrangements cases before the family court.
When a parent applies for a child arrangements order determining with whom their child is to live or spend time, the court must by law presume that the child’s welfare will be furthered by that parent’s involvement in their life, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. When making any decision about the nature of that involvement, the child’s welfare is always paramount, but that presumption applies. This position contrasts starkly with the issue that we are debating this evening involving parents who unilaterally seek to undermine the importance of that law, which attaches importance to both parents’ involvement—always assuming that it is safe and in the child’s best interests to do so.
Where the court is dealing with a child arrangements dispute, the Children Act 1989 sets out what is known as the welfare checklist, which includes having regard to factors such as the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, commensurate with that child’s age and level of understanding. If the court is concerned about what those wishes genuinely are and the feelings involved, it can request the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—CAFCASS—to prepare a welfare report about the child’s wishes and feelings as well as any other any matters relevant to the case.

Tim Loughton: I apologise for not being present for the beginning of the debate, due to its starting early. My right hon. and learned Friend is making some good points, but is it not the case that the problem with child arrangements orders, which represent a diluted form of the shared parenting principle that should have been in the Children and Families Act 2014, is that the resident parent can usually game the legal system by not abiding by contact orders repeatedly? The non-resident parent constantly has to go back to court and does not see the child, so that over a matter of months that then becomes years the child does not know that parent any more, and the child’s wishes and feelings may change to, “I don’t know that parent. I don’t want contact with them.” That is the real cause and the most common form of parental alienation.

Oliver Heald: If my hon. Friend bears with me, I think I will cover those points in my next remarks, but if I do not, I give him full licence to have another go.
CAFCASS is a professional social work organisation and its practitioners understand and recognise the potential for what is often called implacable hostility by a resident or non-resident parent in a child arrangements case. CAFCASS practitioners are professionally qualified social workers with a minimum of three years’ post-qualifying experience. They are aware of the potential for children to be influenced by parental views and are alert to the possibility of parental alienation throughout a case.
Where the child presents adult themes or language, the CAFCASS practitioner will explore these and report on such matters to the court. The idea is to intervene as early as possible—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes). CAFCASS has a range of tools available to assist its practitioners in assessing the presence or the danger of alienating behaviours. They include a tool for use in direct work with the family, where the child rehearsing adult complaints or describing parents in wholly positive or negative terms will indicate their exposure to alienating behaviours.
There are other measures that can be taken. In highly intractable cases the court can make the child who is the subject of the proceedings a party to the case, with their own representative in court, as well as a guardian. That will ensure that the child’s wishes and feelings are fully heard and properly investigated.
The Government recognise, of course, the potential for parental alienation to continue after an order setting child arrangements has been made. A parent who has attempted during the proceedings to alienate the child against the other parent and failed may then seek to frustrate the operation of the order. The court has a general power when making a child arrangements order to direct CAFCASS to monitor compliance with the order and report to the court. A parent may also apply to the court to vary or revoke the order.
Where there is wilful breach of a child arrangements order, the court has powers to deal with that. It may require the person in breach to undertake unpaid work or to pay financial compensation—for example, when a parent has spent money to come to see a child. It is a contempt of court not to follow a court order, and the available punishments include fines and imprisonment, but the court must consider the reason for the breach  and the child’s welfare when deciding whether enforcement action is necessary to secure the other parent’s involvement in the child’s life.

Tim Loughton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Oliver Heald: I am just about to finish replying to my hon. Friend’s previous intervention. He will have an opportunity to intervene again.
In an exceptional case, the court could decide to change the child’s residence to the non-resident parent. As my hon. Friend knows, I have practised in the courts and I was involved in a case where that happened. The case was intractable and long running; one parent was not willing to give any time with the child to the other parent, and in the end the judge transferred the order. I have to say it was not a great success, but that case shows that a powerful remedy is available. Of course, such a change would be profound for the child and could be contemplated only if their longer term welfare needs outweighed the short-term impact on their wellbeing, but in some cases it is an effective option.
Implacable hostility and alienating behaviour by the resident parent are difficult issues for the family court to address and are very distressing for the parent on the receiving end. We need to understand something about the nature and scale of the problem. Professor Liz Trinder of the University of Exeter did a research study in 2012, looking in detail at 215 enforcement applications relating to child contact orders. It was found that alienating or implacably hostile mothers represented a small minority—about 5% of cases. More often, enforcement cases involved parents in continuing high conflict with each other, which prevented them from making arrangements that worked in practice. The second largest group involved cases with significant ongoing welfare concerns, followed by cases where older children just wanted to reduce the amount of time they were spending with their parents, wanting to take part in other activities instead. I can say, as somebody who has done such cases, that the allure of the football pitch or friends down the road sometimes gets in the way as children get older.
I do not for one moment wish to diminish the impact of parental alienation when it occurs. As I have already made clear, such behaviour is unacceptable, but it is important to understand that what may appear to be alienating behaviour by a resident parent may, in fact, be the result of other concerns. It is a mixed, complicated picture. More broadly, I would like to address the perception that the family justice system contains an inherent inequality—I think that is my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham’s point, but I will let him have another go if I am wrong—against fathers seeking to live with or spend time with their children.
As I hope I have explained, the legislative framework governing child arrangements orders and adjudication of disputes by the family court is gender neutral. It is focused—and this is right—on the welfare of the child, as opposed to any perceived rights. Each case is determined on the facts and the individual welfare needs of the child by an independent judge assisted by experienced CAFCASS practitioners. Judges, for their part, recognise the far-reaching nature of the decisions they make for those involved. I certainly know of cases where there has been this sort of appalling behaviour, but later on it  has come to bite the party that was involved because the child has not accepted it in the longer term and has wanted to know both parents.

Tim Loughton: The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I do want to have another go because he is making some very good points. To come back to the available penalties, he mentioned imprisonment. Well, of course, that would fail the welfare checklist for the child in the Children Act 1989 in the vast majority of cases because it is not in the best interests of that child for his or her parent to go to jail. I do not expect him to do this now, but could he provide us with some figures as to the number of occasions on which meaningful penalties have been brought against somebody who is a serial frustrator of contact—that form of parental alienation? How many cases of transfer of residency of a child have there been? I think he will find, notwithstanding his single case, that the actual number is miniscule. That is the nuclear option and the deterrent, but it is not used.

Oliver Heald: I am always happy to discuss these matters with my hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable in the area of children’s protection and who takes a particular interest in a range of social and caring matters concerning children. I am more than happy to look at what information is available for him. It is true that we have done some work looking at pilots and particular examples. The Department for Education also has a series of initiatives, which are not all about this particular issue but are all in the field of family justice. I will also look for what further information I can give the hon. Member for Rochdale about that particular scheme.
The law does not grant either parent any right to any particular amount or pattern of involvement in the child’s life. Parental involvement may take many different forms, from staying overnight, at one end of the spectrum,  to indirect involvement through letters and cards, and it often depends on the geographical circumstances of the parties, too.
If the court determines that a particular arrangement—for example, a shared residence arrangement—is necessary to meet the child’s welfare needs, it can make an order to that effect. I am sure the House will agree that the welfare of the child, including any concerns the court may have about safety, must always come before the wishes of the adult parties. The current law gives the court wide discretion to address the range of welfare issues that can affect children.
I am conscious that this issue transcends party lines, as we have seen tonight. It is an important issue for those fathers who seek to maintain involvement in their child’s life. I hope I have addressed many of those aspects of parental alienation that naturally concern Members.
In concluding, I would like to thank everybody who has made a contribution. I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale for calling the debate and making a speech, but I also thank those who have made interventions, which have raised important points. The Government do not have plans immediately to depart from the current law, which puts children’s welfare first and foremost when the family court considers matters affecting their lives and futures. However, as I said at the beginning, we are giving consideration to what further changes may be needed to the family justice system, and we will seek views on our proposals later this year. That may well offer the hon. Gentleman and others an opportunity to set out their concerns if they feel that we have not gone far enough or that there are other matters we need to consider in detail. In the meantime, I will certainly reflect carefully on what has been said in the debate tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Social Security

That the draft Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 292, Noes 236.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Crown

That the draft Sovereign Grant Act 2011 (Change of Percentage) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 26 January, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 464, Noes 56.

Question accordingly agreed to.